On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 15:57 -0500, Pledge Roy-R01356 wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 13:36 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > On do, 2015-07-09 at 16:21 -0400, Roy Pledge wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_DPA_CHECKING
> > > > +#define DPA_ASSERT(x) \
> > > > + do { \
> > > > + if (!(x)) { \
> > > > + pr_crit("ASSERT: (%s:%d) %s\n", __FILE__,
> > > > __LINE__, \
> > > > + __stringify_1(x)); \
> > > > + dump_stack(); \
> > > > + panic("assertion failure"); \
> > >
> > > Not my call, but why panic() here?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure I've complained about this before (as well as all the
> > BUG_ONs).
> >
> Is the concern here just the call to panic()? I'm happy to change what
> happens when an issue is detected but the DPA_ASSERT() calls are very
> useful when testing changes to the driver and when bringing up the drivers
> on new silicon variants.
Use WARN_ON() or a variant thereof.
-Scott
--
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/
