Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:02:37 +0100 | | From | Alain Knaff <> | | Subject | Re: The policy on initramfs decompression failure | |
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... And logs in the classical sense (in a logfile...)
don't exist yet at that early stage of boot, because it happens _before_
the kernel is able to write to the filesystem...
> Are you suggesting that all warnings that
> signal some potential badness should result in a panic? That is
> nonsensical.
There must be some misunderstanding somewhere. I didn't make any such
suggestion. I agree with you, such a suggestion would be nonsensical.
> What you seem to be arguing for is to introduce a kernel option that says
> "panic on warnings" - so that folks cannot miss warnings. _That_ would be
> a fair argument.
That would be an interesting idea, but might lead to the opposite
problem (kernel stopping _before_ the real problem happens).
Maybe what we could do is "fix" panic() such that it doesn't disable
Shift-Pgup. But I admit that such a change may not be trivial to
implement, as there may be cases where the interrupt system is fubar,
and all interrupt handlers (including keyboard) would need to be disabled.
> Panics are rarely good, unless the user asks for it, period. We've been
> flipping over BUG_ON()s to WARN_ON() everywhere where it matters in
> practice.
>
> Ingo
That is a valid philosophical discussion. But shouldn't we move it to a
thread of its own?
Regards,
Alain
|  |