![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 03/16, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > But panic() isn't better? It doesn't provide any useful info. > > It is not misleading in the same way. It's clear that going to look at the > kernel source is not the place to find the root of the problem. > > > Well, I think the generic "if we have a chance to survive, we should try > > to survive" rule is good. > > > > If the boot init dies, at least the admin has a chance to figure out what > > has happened, and -o remount,ro /. > > For me and you, I agree. I think the common case is that there is no admin > prepared to do any such thing, but just someone expecting a reboot to fix > things and preferring that a failing system reboot itself in the middle of > the night rather than wedge. Agreed, > > Every BUG/BUG_ON in fact means the system is not useable, but still it does > > not panic(), but tries to proceed. > > Many production systems probably set panic_on_oops. Having the init panic > behavior keyed on that seems fine to me. I just don't like the "kernel bug > at this source line" output when it's not true. Ah, OK. We can change this to dump_stack() without BUG(). (but again! panic() isn't better, it also looks like a kernel bug). Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-17 00:53 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||