On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:48:10 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 February 2008 17:24:57 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:08:37 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 14:53:18 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > That risks killing previously-working setups. WARN_ON is sufficient. > > > > > > I disagree. WARN_ON is useful for developers, but they can handle > > > BUG_ON, too. > > > > For developers, BUG_ON has zero benefit relative to WARN_ON. > > > > For non-developers, BUG_ON has large disadvantages relative to WARN_ON. > > > > It's a no-brainer. > > For non-developers, WARN_ON is a noop. Oh.. Rusty. The mailing list and bugzilla are *full* of WARN_ON reports from testers. Your statement is empirically wrong. > For developers, WARN_ON is often a noop. And from developers. > BUG_ON() will make us fix it in return for short-term pain. Pain to our users and testers. People upon whom we are very dependent and to whom we are hugely indebted. People who I have to spend a lot of time defending from the likes of you! > WARN_ON() wont, > in return for less pain. It's mildly better than nothing, but not worth the > patch. -- 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/