On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > Since I haven't even heard a "my bad" from the systemd people, I'd be > inclined to say that a bit of protection for future issues would be a > good idea.
Just coming back to this thread now, I'll say something. I'm a systemd maintainer, and I'm sorry systemd's assertion bug, combined with aliasing the debug option with the kernel's, broke a bunch of workflows (including boot) and caused a bunch of unnecessary pain. As a few other people have already said, this assertion should now be fixed. The question is now about the debug option, and I've given my +1 to Greg's patch for that. I think it's justified to put a condom on systemd's debug mode given how badly the assertion bug cascaded into affecting non-systemd work. Long-term, it would be nice to find a way to satisfy both the "admin who's just trying to find what's broken case" without harming the kernel developer case. Maybe distros could ship a "debug everything" boot option that independently enables it for the kernel, systemd, and possibly other tools. But, that's out of scope for LKML. I'll look into that as part of Fedora's Server Working Group assuming we namespace to systemd.debug. We're already shipping a "recovery" boot option. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
