IMHO inflated severity if this bug is unjustified. Generally speaking, memtest86+ is exposing a hardware problem which is exactly what it designed to do and seems to be doing well - therefore this bug seems to be targeted against memtest86+'s primary function.
Let me use a hypothetical example: suppose I'm stress testing a notebook
continuously for many hours. But notebook is not designed with same thermal
properties as a server so during testing notebook is overheated beyond its
thermal specifications for too long so it eventually breaks. Fair enough,
arguably memtest86+ exposed flaw in thermal design which is exactly what's
expected. It is unfortunate if hardware ended up damaged but it is not a bug
in memtest86+.
Isn't it common sense that any burn-out test is not without risks of damage
to hardware?
Maybe this bug is to be forwarded to notebook vendor?
What action you expect from Debian maintainer?
Incorporating a warning appears to be a task for upstream developers.
For what it's worth, I've used memtest86+ to extensively test two different
models of T520 and T410 Thinkpads without breaking them...
--
All the best,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
Lies are the social equivalent of toxic waste: Everyone is potentially
harmed by their spread.
-- Sam Harris
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
