On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 04:03:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Except... earlier in the thread you explained how you hacked > > #define VM_BUG_ON(cond) WARN_ON(cond) > > to get this to come out as a warning instead of a bug, > > and now it looks as if "a user" has here done the same. > > > > Which is very much a user's right, of course; but does > > make me wonder whether that user might actually be davej ;) > > indirectly. I made the same change in the Fedora kernel a while ago > to test a hypothesis that we weren't getting any VM_BUG_ON reports.
Fedora turns on CONFIG_DEBUG_VM? All mm developers should thank you for the wider testing exposure; but I'm not so sure that Fedora users should thank you for turning it on - really it's for mm developers to wrap around !assertions or more expensive checks (e.g. checking calls) in their development. Or did I read a few months ago that some change had been made to such definitions, and VM_BUG_ON(contents) are evaluated even when the config option is off? I do hope I'm mistaken on that. Hugh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
