Re: [PATCH 1/1] Taint kernel after WARN_ON(condition)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek
Date: Monday, February 11, 2008 - 1:20 pm

On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:52:22AM +0800, Nur Hussein wrote:

Any architecture that has it's own WARN_ON will not taint the kernel.

Speaking of WARN_ON...

$ git-grep "[^A-Za-z_0-9]WARN_ON(1)" | wc -l
180

Maybe making a WARN() (similar to BUG) that does an unconditional warning
(and sets the taint flag) and having a simple wrapper around it for the
conditional WARN_ON would be worth it? Hm...looks like some of the USB folks
have a #define'd WARN to something quite a bit more complex (format string,
etc.)

Josef 'Jeff' Sipek.

-- 
Linux, n.:
  Generous programmers from around the world all join forces to help
  you shoot yourself in the foot for free. 
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 1/1] Taint kernel after WARN_ON(condition), Nur Hussein, (Mon Feb 11, 12:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/1] Taint kernel after WARN_ON(condition), Josef 'Jeff' Sipek, (Mon Feb 11, 1:20 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/1] Taint kernel after WARN_ON(condition), Randy Dunlap, (Mon Feb 11, 1:28 pm)