Re: [PATCH 2/4] panic: Allow taint flag for warnings to be changedfrom TAINT_WARN

[Ben Hutchings]

On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 20:10 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > WARN() is used in some places to report firmware or hardware bugs that
> > are then worked-around.  These bugs do not affect the stability of the
> > kernel and should not set the usual TAINT_WARN flag.  To allow for
> > this, add WARN_TAINT() and WARN_TAINT_ONCE() macros that take a taint
> > flag as argument.
> >
> > Architectures that implement warnings using trap instructions instead
> > of calls to warn_slowpath_*() must now implement __WARN_TAINT(taint)
> > instead of __WARN().
> 
> I guess this should enforce that at least some taint flag is set?
> (e.g. with a BUILD_BUG_ON)

I'm being a bit sloppy with the wording here.  The TAINT_* macros are
actually bit numbers, not flags.  I could define a TAINT_MAX and add:

	BUILD_BUG_ON(taint < 0 || taint > TAINT_MAX);

Not sure that that's really worth doing though.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
If you seem to know what you are doing, you'll be given more to do.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part