On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:20:57 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:43:32PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven
> (arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > @@ -3174,6 +3176,10 @@ static void ipw2100_irq_tasklet(struct
> > > ipw2100_priv *priv) if (inta & IPW2100_INTA_FATAL_ERROR) {
> > > printk(KERN_WARNING DRV_NAME
> > > ": Fatal interrupt. Scheduling firmware
> > > restart.\n");
> > > + WARN_ON(1);
> > > +
> > > + BUG_ON(ipw2100_max_fatal_ints-- <= 0);
> >
> > BUG_ON in interrupt context is just extremely hostile, since it
> > means the box is dead.
> >
> > also I would suggest using WARN_ON_ONCE()
>
> Well, I actually wanted to have a bug there because of it, but now I
> think that annoying repeated warning is enough to bring attention to
> the problem by putting bug information into some magic special place
> called kerneloops collection.
are you more interested in bringing attention than finding something
that makes the driver work ? I sort of am getting that impression and
I'd be disappointed if that is the case.
>
> Consider for inclusing for the upcoming kernel to get wider
> notifications. Yes, it is not a bugfix, I know.
still more complex than needed; a WARN_ON_ONCE() will be enough.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
