* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > i very much agree that this kmalloc_index() one shouldnt be called a > > "BUG: ", but if you look at the majority of WARN_ON() instances they > > are checks for clear, serious kernel bugs. > > I _still_ disagree. > > There's a huge difference between "You killed my father, prepare to > die", and "Btw, I didn't like that, but I'll just continue". yeah ... > And that's the difference between BUG_ON() and WARN_ON(). how about this solution: make WARN_ON() a "WARNING: " like you suggested (i still agree with that in principle), but also solve the additional problem i'm trying to outline: make BUG_ON() _not_ crash the box [only if the user asks for a crash to happen in such circumstances - this can be a sysctl.]. Then i can change the majority of the current WARN_ON()s to BUG_ON()s. Most of the WARN_ON()s i personally add (and most of the WARN_ON()s i see others adding) are not WARN_ON()s because "i didnt like that and i'll just continue", they are WARN_ON() because i want _actual feedback from users_. A BUG_ON() has a (much) lower likelyhood of being reported back - for most users it is a "X just hung hard, there was nothing in the syslog, i had to switch back to the older kernel" experience, and they do not have a serial console to hook up (newer hardware often doesnt even have a serial port). With the WARN_ON()s we have a _chance_ that despite the seriousness of the bug, the message makes it to the syslog, until the system comes to a screeching halt due to side-effects of the bug. in that sense i am part of the problem: i was adding WARN_ON()s that werent true 'warnings' but 'bugs'. So i'd very much like to fix that problem, but i'd also like to solve the (very serious and existing) problem of BUG_ON()s making it less likely to get bugs reported back. Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
