lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-14 11:39    [W:0.053 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site