+
+/*
+ * In case of failure of any of these tests, memory corruption is almost
+ * guarranteed; allowing the boot to continue means risking to corrupt
+ * also any filesystem/block device accessed write mode.
+ * Therefore, BUG_ON() is used, when testing.
+ */
+
+
I like the explanation;
+
+/*
+ * In case of failure of any of these tests, memory corruption is almost
+ * guarranteed; allowing the boot to continue means risking to corrupt
+ * also any filesystem/block device accessed write mode.
+ * Therefore, BUG_ON() is used, when testing.
+ */
+
+
I like the explanation;
Introduce a set of macros for writing concise test cases for genalloc.
The test cases are meant to provide regression testing, when working on
new functionality for genalloc.
Primarily they are meant to confirm that the various allocation strategy
will continue to work as expected.
The
Introduce a set of macros for writing concise test cases for genalloc.
The test cases are meant to provide regression testing, when working on
new functionality for genalloc.
Primarily they are meant to confirm that the various allocation strategy
will continue to work as expected.
The
On 26/02/18 21:12, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
[...]
> panic() halts the kernel
> BUG_ON() kills the thread
> WARN_ON() just prints messages
>
> Now, if we're at boot time and we're still executing code from the init
> thread, killing init is equivalent to halting the kernel.
>
> The question is,
On 26/02/18 21:12, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
[...]
> panic() halts the kernel
> BUG_ON() kills the thread
> WARN_ON() just prints messages
>
> Now, if we're at boot time and we're still executing code from the init
> thread, killing init is equivalent to halting the kernel.
>
> The question is,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 08:00:26PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 26/02/18 19:46, J Freyensee wrote:
> > That's a good question. Based upon those articles, 'yes'. But it seems
> > like a 'darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don't' question as couldn't you
> > also corrupt a mounted filesystem by
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 08:00:26PM +0200, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> On 26/02/18 19:46, J Freyensee wrote:
> > That's a good question. Based upon those articles, 'yes'. But it seems
> > like a 'darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don't' question as couldn't you
> > also corrupt a mounted filesystem by
On 26/02/18 19:46, J Freyensee wrote:
>
>
> On 2/26/18 4:11 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>>
>> On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote:
+ locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
+ BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
>>> Again, I'd think it through if you really
On 26/02/18 19:46, J Freyensee wrote:
>
>
> On 2/26/18 4:11 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>>
>> On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote:
+ locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
+ BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
>>> Again, I'd think it through if you really
On 2/26/18 4:11 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote:
+ locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
+ BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not:
On 2/26/18 4:11 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote:
+ locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
+ BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not:
On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote:
>
>> +locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
>> +BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
>
> Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/13183/
>
On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote:
>
>> +locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
>> +BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
>
> Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/13183/
>
+ locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
+ BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not:
https://lwn.net/Articles/13183/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/1
Thanks,
Jay
+ locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
+ BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not:
https://lwn.net/Articles/13183/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/1
Thanks,
Jay
Introduce a set of macros for writing concise test cases for genalloc.
The test cases are meant to provide regression testing, when working on
new functionality for genalloc.
Primarily they are meant to confirm that the various allocation strategy
will continue to work as expected.
The
Introduce a set of macros for writing concise test cases for genalloc.
The test cases are meant to provide regression testing, when working on
new functionality for genalloc.
Primarily they are meant to confirm that the various allocation strategy
will continue to work as expected.
The
18 matches
Mail list logo
