On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:50:31AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
>
> The tool-specific BUG() implementation can be added as a delta
> on top of that. It's in fact better to keep those two steps
> separate.
>
OK, will do on top.
Cyrill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
* Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:40:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
GDB will catch that signal.
Yeah, good point! Pekka, drop this patch please, I'll make new one at evening.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Patch is good as-is IMO - assert() was used before so i
* Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:40:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > GDB will catch that signal.
> >
>
> Yeah, good point! Pekka, drop this patch please, I'll make new one at evening.
Patch is good as-is IMO - assert() was used before so it's not a
regression per
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:40:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> GDB will catch that signal.
>
Yeah, good point! Pekka, drop this patch please, I'll make new one at evening.
Cyrill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vg
* Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> +#
> +#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 -
> 2*!!(condition)]))
> +#define BUG_ON(condition)assert(!(condition))
Just a sidenote, the patch is fine but the above will result in
weird double negated assertion messages.
it's better to just
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> You don't need to convert all of them at the same time but we're not
>> adding new assert() calls.
>>
>
> You both (Pekka and Ingo) know the way how to convince people ;)
> Something like below?
Perfect! I'll apply it later today. Thanks
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:19:43AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:13:28AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >> >
> >> >- BUILD_BUG_ON(i > E820_X_MAX);
> >> >+ assert(i <= E820_X_MAX);
> >>
> >> We should use BUG_ON() like tools/perf does.
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:57
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:13:28AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> >
>> >- BUILD_BUG_ON(i > E820_X_MAX);
>> >+ assert(i <= E820_X_MAX);
>>
>> We should use BUG_ON() like tools/perf does.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> We dont have it yet. So I'll introduce this help
* Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:13:28AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > >
> > >- BUILD_BUG_ON(i > E820_X_MAX);
> > >+ assert(i <= E820_X_MAX);
> >
> > We should use BUG_ON() like tools/perf does.
> >
>
> We dont have it yet. So I'll introduce this helper later,
> but no
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:13:28AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >
> >-BUILD_BUG_ON(i > E820_X_MAX);
> >+assert(i <= E820_X_MAX);
>
> We should use BUG_ON() like tools/perf does.
>
We dont have it yet. So I'll introduce this helper later,
but note that we will have to cover _all_ assert()
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
BUILD_BUG_ON is unable to catch errors on expression which
can't be evaluated at compile time.
Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov
---
tools/kvm/x86/bios.c |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.git/tools/kvm/x86/bios.c
BUILD_BUG_ON is unable to catch errors on expression which
can't be evaluated at compile time.
Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov
---
tools/kvm/x86/bios.c |3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.git/tools/kvm/x86/bios.c
===
12 matches
Mail list logo
