On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:33:17PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:11:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:48:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> > >
> > > When neither CONFIG_BUG nor HAVE_ARCH_BUG is defined, need let function
> > > return failure value ('NULL') instead of random value.
> >
> > What will such a kernel do? Happily continue running whenever we hit a
> > BUG? that seems like a particularly bad idea. Should we not have a stub
> > BUG() function like:
> >
> > void BUG(void) __attribute__((noreturn))
> > {
> > local_irq_disable();
> > while (1) ;
> > }
>
> Eww. So you've a platform where you have things like panic_on_oops
> enabled, and you hit this bug... do we really want to just stop?
> Wouldn't replacing BUG() with panic("BUG"); be better ?
>
> But, this begs the question - what is the point of being able to turn
> off BUG() ? As BUG() on any sensible architecture is implemented by
> placing the minimum of code at the callsite (eg, one instruction if
> not using verbose) anything like the above is likely to be bigger.
>
> So, I'd actually argue that rather than trying to "fix" this, get rid
> of CONFIG_BUG and make it always enabled everywhere - just like what
> has recently been done with hotplug.
Works for me.
--
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/
