Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 21:51:45 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, derosier@gmail.com,
        greearb@candelatech.com, jeyu@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, aquini@redhat.com, cai@lca.pw, dyoung@redhat.com,
        bhe@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        gpiccoli@canonical.com, pmladek@suse.com, tiwai@suse.de,
        schlad@suse.de, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, will@kernel.org,
        mchehab+samsung@kernel.org, kvalo@codeaurora.org,
        davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        ath10k@lists.infradead.org, jiri@resnulli.us,
        briannorris@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] devlink: add simple fw crash helpers
Message-ID: <20200522215145.GC11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
References: <20200519010530.GS11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
 <20200519211531.3702593-1-kuba@kernel.org>
 <20200522052046.GY11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
 <20200522101738.1495f4cc@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <2e5199edb433c217c7974ef7408ff8c7253145b6.camel@sipsolutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2e5199edb433c217c7974ef7408ff8c7253145b6.camel@sipsolutions.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:46:07PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> FWIW, I still completely disagree on that taint. You (Luis) obviously
> have been running into a bug in that driver, I doubt the firmware
> actually managed to wedge the hardware.

This hasn't happened just once, its happed many times sporadically now,
once a week or two weeks I'd say. And the system isn't being moved
around.

> But even if it did, that's still not really a kernel taint. The kernel
> itself isn't in any way affected by this.

Of course it is, a full reboot is required.

> Yes, the system is in a weird state now. But that's *not* equivalent to
> "kernel tainted".

Requiring a full reboot is a dire situation to be in, and loosing
connectivity to the point this is not recoverable likewise.

You guys are making out a taint to be the end of the world. We have a
taint even for a kernel warning, and as others have mentioned mac80211
already produces these.

What exactly is the opposition to a taint to clarify that a device
firmware has crashed and your system requires a full reboot?

  Luis