On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 08/02/2016 01:07 PM, Alexander Potapenko wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Andrey Ryabinin >>>> >>>> Why WARN? I'd suggest pr_warn_once(); >>> >>> >>> I would suggest to just do something useful. Setting quarantine >>> new_quarantine_size to 0 looks fine. >>> What would user do with this warning? Number of CPUs and amount of >>> memory are generally fixed. Why is it an issue for end user at all? We >>> still have some quarantine per-cpu. A WARNING means a [non-critical] >>> kernel bug. E.g. syzkaller will catch each and every boot of such >>> system as a bug. >> How about printk_once then? >> Silently setting the quarantine size to zero may puzzle the user. >> > > Nope, user will not notice anything. So keeping it silent would be better. > Plus it's very unlikely that this will ever happen in real life. > Ok, I've sent out v2, please take a look. -- Alexander Potapenko Software Engineer Google Germany GmbH Erika-Mann-Straße, 33 80636 München Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href