> 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.

quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> Every BUG/BUG_ON in fact means the system is not useable, but still it does
> not panic(), but tries to proceed.

Many production systems probably set panic_on_oops.  Having the init panic
behavior keyed on that seems fine to me.  I just don't like the "kernel bug
at this source line" output when it's not true.


Thanks,
Roland
--
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/