On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:27:08AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > In this case the WARN_ON is just to guard against misuse of the > function. It should never happen unless a developer changes the code in > a way that is incorrect. So I think that's the correct use of WARN_ON. > Though I might change it to WARN and return, that seems safer.
Right, WARN_ON and return is the right pattern for an assertion that must never happen: if (WARN_ON(foo)) return -1 Linus wants assertions like this to be able to recover. People runing the 'panic on warn' mode want the kernel to stop if it detects an internal malfunction. Jason _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu