On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Paul Burton wrote: > > Hmm, this looks like a fatal error condition to me, the module won't > > load. Why `pr_warn' rather than `pr_err' then? Likewise in the other > > file. > > To me fatality implies death, and nothing dies here. The module isn't > loaded but that's done gracefully & is not likely due to an error in the > kernel - it's far more likely that the module isn't valid. So to me, > warning seems appropriate rather than implying an error in the kernel. It may be bikeshedding, however these levels affect what goes to syslog and the console. There are `crit', `alert' and `emerg' levels above, to raise more severe conditions. As to `warn' I'd expect one on a succesful action made with some limitations, e.g. a compatibility mode of some kind, running with a performance limitation, some functionality disabled, etc. There's also `notice', which is lower, I'd use for normal actions that might require operator's attention, e.g. I'd put switching a network interface into the promiscuous mode there, due to its side effect on overall system performance. And I don't think it has to be a bug in the kernel to raise an `err' condition. However I do agree the boundary here may be a bit fuzzy and code you've been changing doesn't seem consistent either. FWIW, Maciej
