[lm-sensors] [PATCH] hwmon: (i5k_amb) Replace BUG with WARN

Darrick J. Wong djwong at us.ibm.com
Tue Aug 23 18:55:56 CEST 2011


On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:01:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:05:50PM -0400, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Hi Jean,
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 05:16:24PM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Hi Guenter,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:49:31 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > Executing BUG as a result of an internal driver error seems to be a bit harsh.
> > > 
> > > Well, that's pretty much what BUG was designed for: internal errors
> > > that aren't supposed to happen.
> > > 
> > Problem with BUG is that it can be undefined for some configurations,
> > in which case it doesn't do anything. 
> > 
> > Also, while it may make sense to bring down the system if there is a severe bug 
> > which makes it impossible to continue, that seems to be a bit excessive
> > for a hwmon driver.
> > 
> > > > Replace it with WARN and return -ENODEV if the condition is seen.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what is the benefit of WARN over pr_warn() in this case.
> > > 
> > WARN generates a traceback, pr_warn doesn't. I think the scope is a bit different
> > - one warns about a programming error, the other warns about a system consition.
> > 
> Hi all,
> 
> As I don't see a consensus for my proposed patch, I'll drop it.

Sorry, I'm just slow at testing things sometimes. :(

In general I like the idea of replacing BUG with WARN when possible,
particularly with hardware detection.  Your patch seems to load ok on all the
systems I can still claw together, so,

Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong at us.ibm.com>

--D
> 
> Guenter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lm-sensors mailing list
> lm-sensors at lm-sensors.org
> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors




More information about the lm-sensors mailing list