On 10/23/2007 01:00 AM, Ray Lee wrote:
On 10/22/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hugely trust inspiring isn't it -- the amount of eyes and comments you'll
get even on trivial patches like this? This development model is working!
Go easy with the snarkiness, hmm? It's the trivial o
On 10/22/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hugely trust inspiring isn't it -- the amount of eyes and comments you'll
> get even on trivial patches like this? This development model is working!
Go easy with the snarkiness, hmm? It's the trivial ones that seem to
be the most dangerous. Th
On 10/22/2007 08:52 PM, Roel Kluin wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
Arguing intentions is very dangerous. I've written code like that
where the intention is to make it simple to turn a printk into a full
bug and back and forth during development. At the end of the day, the
fact remains that you're chang
Ray Lee wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, perhaps I poured myself a cup of stupid this morning, but
>>> isn't the above patch effectively introducing a BUG where none could
>>> be reached before? In other words, for the patch to have zero
>>> behavioral change, wouldn't it have to remove the BUG() altogether?
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:42:09PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:05:05 +0200
> Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > return hidden bug
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c
> > b/arch/alpha
On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ray Lee wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, perhaps I poured myself a cup of stupid this morning, but
> > isn't the above patch effectively introducing a BUG where none could
> > be reached before? In other words, for the patch to have zero
> > behavioral ch
Ray Lee wrote:
> I'm sorry, perhaps I poured myself a cup of stupid this morning, but
> isn't the above patch effectively introducing a BUG where none could
> be reached before? In other words, for the patch to have zero
> behavioral change, wouldn't it have to remove the BUG() altogether?
True,
On 10/21/07, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:05:05 +0200
> Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > return hidden bug
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c
> > b/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iomm
Hi Rik,
On 10/22/07, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:30:00 +0300
> I guess people who disable CONFIG_BUG really choose to shoot themselves
> in the foot when something bad happens. The kernel is full of error
> paths where the current thread really should not be c
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:30:00 +0300
"Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/22/07, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BUG() will terminate the process that runs into it, so you can
> > just remove the return alltogether. If BUG() is hit, the return
> > will never be reached.
>
>
Hi,
On 10/22/07, Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BUG() will terminate the process that runs into it, so you can
> just remove the return alltogether. If BUG() is hit, the return
> will never be reached.
This isn't true when CONFIG_BUG is disabled (in embedded builds, for example).
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 01:42:09AM +, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> BUG() will terminate the process that runs into it, so you can
> just remove the return alltogether. If BUG() is hit, the return
> will never be reached.
This is true in general. However, if someone builds the kernel
with CONFIG_B
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:53:30 +0200
Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hidden bug returns
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:05:05 +0200
> Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> return hidden bug
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c
>> b/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c index e1c4707..6a69425 100644
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:05:05 +0200
Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> return hidden bug
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c
> b/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c index e1c4707..6a69425 100644
> --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_
return hidden bug
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c b/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c
index e1c4707..6a69425 100644
--- a/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c
+++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/pci_iommu.c
@@ -365,8 +365,8 @@ pci_unmap_single(struct
16 matches
Mail list logo
