Ray Lee wrote: >>> 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? >> True, but obviously not intended. I think the intention was to expose this >> bug. > > Arguing intentions is very dangerous. I've written code like that > where the intention is to make it simple to turn a printk into a full > bug and back and forth during development. At the end of the day, the > fact remains that you're changing behavior. > > Let me turn this around. Do you have an alpha and have you tried out > your patch? If not, then I'd suggest turning it into a WARN_ON(1) > instead, as in this specific case you're risking turning what was a > working system into one that doesn't.
No, I haven't and, I will change it, but it's included with my other changes. see the reply that I'll write shortly for. [PATCH retry] return hidden bug and unlock bugs. Roel - 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/
