On 28 Apr 2007 12:48:55 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > box:/usr/src/25> ~/checkpatch.pl patches/slub-core.patch > > Checking patches/slub-core.patch: signoffs = 30 > > Use WARN_ON & Recovery code rather than BUG() and BUG_ON() > > The warning is bogus imho. How do you write recovery code for internal > broken code logic?
Yes, it is marginal. But people do very often reach for BUG_ON() where they could have at least partly recovered in some fashion - enough for the info to hit the logs so we have a better chance of fixing it. BUG_ON() is of course sometimes the right thing to do, but the idea here is to suggest to the developers that they put a bit of thought into whether it was really justified. This little checking tool should have both "error" and "warning" levels - AKA "fix this" and "think about this" levels. BUG_ON would be a warning thing. - 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/
