On 10/21/07, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:05:05 +0200 > Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > return hidden bug > > > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c > > b/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c index e1c4707..6a69425 100644 > > --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c > > +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c > > @@ -365,8 +365,8 @@ pci_unmap_single(struct pci_dev *pdev, dma_addr_t > > dma_addr, size_t size, printk(KERN_ERR "Bogus pci_unmap_single: > > dma_addr %lx " " base %lx size %x\n", dma_addr, arena->dma_base, > > arena->size); > > - return; > > BUG(); > > + return; > > } > > > > npages = calc_npages((dma_addr & ~PAGE_MASK) + size); > > BUG() will terminate the process that runs into it, so you can > just remove the return alltogether. If BUG() is hit, the return > will never be reached.
I'm sorry, perhaps I poured myself a cup of stupid this morning, but isn't the above patch effectively introducing a BUG where none could be reached before? In other words, for the patch to have zero behavioral change, wouldn't it have to remove the BUG() altogether? Ray - 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/
