Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Stop BUGing the system

[Viresh Kumar]

On 18 December 2014 at 20:19, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> I can add "could be unstable" -> the point being there can be psuedo
> errors reported in the system - example - clock framework bugs. Dont
> just stop the boot. example: what if cpufreq was a driver module - it
> would not have rescued the system because cpufreq had'nt detected the
> logic - if we are going to force this on the system, we should probably
> not do this in cpufreq code, instead should be somewhere generic.
>
> While I do empathise (and had infact advocated in the past) of not
> favouring system attempting to continue at an invalid configuration and
> our attempt to rescue has failed - given that we cannot provide a
> consistent behavior (it is not a core system behavior) and potential of
> a false-postive (example clk framework or underlying bug), it should be
> good enough to "enhance" WARN to be "severe sounding enough" to
> flag it for developer and continue while keeping the system alive as
> much as possible.

There is no way out for the kernel to know if its a false positive or a real
bug. And in the worst case, it can screw up a platform completely.

I am still not sure if changing it to a WARN would be good idea.

@Rafael: Thoughts ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/