On 6/4/07, Justin Piszcz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Ray Lee wrote: > Ick. Systems that used to boot fine would then panic on a kernel > upgrade. That's rather rude for a condition that's merely an > optimization (using all memory), rather than one of correctness. A > panic seems entirely inappropriate. While I am unsure of the 'best' solution, if they boot and it does not panic but takes 10 minutes to boot, people are going to seriously wonder what is going on?
<goes and re-reads thread more carefully> Oh, hmm. I think a big fat warning with asterisks in the bootup is a good thing, but panicking when there's no need is never a good idea. If the system takes that long to boot up, I'm certain the first thing they'll do is to type dmesg | less to look for anomalies. Ray - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Justin Piszcz <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Justin Piszcz <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Matt Keenan <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: "Ray Lee" <[email protected]>
- Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- From: Justin Piszcz <[email protected]>
- Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- Prev by Date: Re: slow open() calls and o_nonblock
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] sundance: PHY address form 0, only for device ID 0x0200 (IP100A)
- Previous by thread: Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- Next by thread: Re: Intel's response Linux/MTRR/8GB Memory Support / Why doesn't the kernel realize the BIOS has problems and re-map appropriately?
- Index(es):
 |