Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> wrote:

quoted text
>> 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.

I think the common case is repairing a system using init=/bin/sh, and
forgetting to not log out instead of fscking the filesystem after the panic.
Rebooting on panic= is fine, but not skipping the umount/sync stages.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/