On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 08:21:01AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 11:34:27PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > Linux's BUG_ON is done backwards (condition is inverted). > > But it is a long story. > > > > However C11/C23 allow to partially transition to what all normal > > programmers are used to, namely assert(). > > > > Deprecate BUILD_BUG_ON, recommend static_assert/_Static_assert. > > And then some day BUG_ON will be flipped as well. > > Odd, why are you attempting to make all of these mandates without > actually changing the code itself first?
If I do source code first, some people or checkpatch.pl will say code is not conformant! I want to codify rules so my patches don't rejected due to silly reasons, due to the rules which don't make sense. > That's just asking for major churn for no good reason... Reason is there. static_assert() is better because it is in the standard, and Linux convention of inverting condition never made any sense. > Sorry, but this series makes no sense to me.
