On 14-05-06 03:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paul Gortmaker
>> wrote:
>>> A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
>>> The typical misuse is someone only thinking of what represents
>>> a bug in their
Am 06.05.2014 11:35, schrieb Ingo Molnar:
>
> * Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
I like the idea but not the name.
What about DIE() and DIE_ON()?
>>>
>>> CRASH_ON() might be a suggestive name as well, as from the user's
>>> point of view we are crashing her system.
>>
>> I fear such
* Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >> I like the idea but not the name.
> >> What about DIE() and DIE_ON()?
> >
> > CRASH_ON() might be a suggestive name as well, as from the user's
> > point of view we are crashing her system.
>
> I fear such users will think "Why should I crash the kernel?".
Am 06.05.2014 09:35, schrieb Ingo Molnar:
>
> * Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paul Gortmaker
>> wrote:
>>> A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
>>> The typical misuse is someone only thinking of what represents
>>> a bug in their
* Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paul Gortmaker
> wrote:
> > A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
> > The typical misuse is someone only thinking of what represents
> > a bug in their local code, and especially for people relatively
>
* Richard Weinberger richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paul Gortmaker
paul.gortma...@windriver.com wrote:
A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
The typical misuse is someone only thinking of what represents
a bug in their
Am 06.05.2014 09:35, schrieb Ingo Molnar:
* Richard Weinberger richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paul Gortmaker
paul.gortma...@windriver.com wrote:
A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
The typical misuse is someone only
* Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
I like the idea but not the name.
What about DIE() and DIE_ON()?
CRASH_ON() might be a suggestive name as well, as from the user's
point of view we are crashing her system.
I fear such users will think Why should I crash the kernel?. ;-)
Am 06.05.2014 11:35, schrieb Ingo Molnar:
* Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
I like the idea but not the name.
What about DIE() and DIE_ON()?
CRASH_ON() might be a suggestive name as well, as from the user's
point of view we are crashing her system.
I fear such users will
On 14-05-06 03:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Richard Weinberger richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paul Gortmaker
paul.gortma...@windriver.com wrote:
A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
The typical misuse is someone only
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paul Gortmaker
wrote:
> A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
> The typical misuse is someone only thinking of what represents
> a bug in their local code, and especially for people relatively
> new to Linux, starting out in device
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Paul Gortmaker
paul.gortma...@windriver.com wrote:
A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
The typical misuse is someone only thinking of what represents
a bug in their local code, and especially for people relatively
new to Linux,
A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
The typical misuse is someone only thinking of what represents
a bug in their local code, and especially for people relatively
new to Linux, starting out in device drivers, the appeal of using
BUG w/o knowing what it really does is
A long standing problem for us has been the misuse of BUG/BUG_ON.
The typical misuse is someone only thinking of what represents
a bug in their local code, and especially for people relatively
new to Linux, starting out in device drivers, the appeal of using
BUG w/o knowing what it really does is
14 matches
Mail list logo
