On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:33:32PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > On 3/4/25 12:10 PM, Michal Koutný wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 06:52:41AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:19:00AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > > > ... > > > > I do have some concern with the use of pr_warn*() because some users may > > > > attempt to use the panic_on_warn command line option. > > > Yeah, let's print these as info. > > The intention is _not_ to cause panic by any of this this. > > Note the difference between WARN() and pr_warn() (only the former > > panics). > > Warn level has precedent in mm/memcontrol-v1.c already. > > I think you are right. The pr_warn() function should not cause a panic. I > have the misconception that pr_warn() will be affected by panic_on_warn > before. In that case, I have no objection to use pr_warn(). I'm apprehensive about adding warning messages which may be triggered consistently without anything end users can do about them. I think that deprecation messages, unless such deprecation is immediate and would have direct consequences on how the system can be used, should be informational. Thanks. -- tejun
