Re: [PATCH 1/5] MIPS: Bail on unsupported module relocs

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Paul Burton wrote:

> >  Hmm, this looks like a fatal error condition to me, the module won't 
> > load.  Why `pr_warn' rather than `pr_err' then?  Likewise in the other 
> > file.
> 
> To me fatality implies death, and nothing dies here. The module isn't
> loaded but that's done gracefully & is not likely due to an error in the
> kernel - it's far more likely that the module isn't valid. So to me,
> warning seems appropriate rather than implying an error in the kernel.

 It may be bikeshedding, however these levels affect what goes to syslog 
and the console.  There are `crit', `alert' and `emerg' levels above, to 
raise more severe conditions.  As to `warn' I'd expect one on a succesful 
action made with some limitations, e.g. a compatibility mode of some kind, 
running with a performance limitation, some functionality disabled, etc.  
There's also `notice', which is lower, I'd use for normal actions that 
might require operator's attention, e.g. I'd put switching a network 
interface into the promiscuous mode there, due to its side effect on 
overall system performance.

 And I don't think it has to be a bug in the kernel to raise an `err' 
condition.  However I do agree the boundary here may be a bit fuzzy and 
code you've been changing doesn't seem consistent either.

 FWIW,

  Maciej