Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:37:27 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: The policy on initramfs decompression failure |
| |
* Alain Knaff <alain@knaff.lu> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Alain Knaff <alain@knaff.lu> wrote: > > > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> And your argument makes little sense: if there is something wrong then one > >>> looks at the logs _anyway_. > >> Unfortunately, not everybody has the knowledge or equipment ready to set > >> up a serial console... [...] > > > > By your argument the ton of warnings we emit in various situations are > > wrong too and all should be panic()s. > > That is not my argument. I never said something like that.
I did not say that it is your argument, i said it is _by_ your argument: i.e. it is a logical extension of your argument.
Exactly how is such a warning different from other warnings that the kernel already emits? For which people supposedly have to set up a serial console? (which they dont have to)
Answer: it is not different, and it is exactly as hard or easy to find as the other ones. I.e. why should this warning get a special treatment? I already told the kernel that i dont want a gzip ramfs image decompressor by turning off the (otherwise default-enabled) option. panic()ing on that decision, overriding my decision and escallating it into a non-working system is silly and a bug.
Ingo
| |