Re: What policy for BUG_ON()?

[Paulo Marques]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 22:15, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > > Let me try to summarize the different options regarding BUG_ON, 
> > > concerning whether the argument to BUG_ON might contain side effects, 
> > > and whether it should be allowed in some "do this only if you _really_ 
> > > know what you are doing" situations to let BUG_ON do nothing.
> > >
> > > Options:
> > > 1. BUG_ON must not be defined to do nothing
> > > 1a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
> > > 1b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
> > > 2. BUG_ON is allowed to be defined to do nothing
> > > 2a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
> > > 2b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
> >
> > since you quoted me earlier my 2 cents:
> > 1) I would prefer BUG_ON() arguments to not have side effects; its just 
> > cleaner that way. (similar to assert)
> >
> > 2) if one wants to compiel out BUG_ON, I rather alias it to panic() than
> > to nothing.
>
>
> I agree completely with that.

This would mean that the condition would still have to be
tested which kind of defeats the purpose of removing the
BUG_ON in the first place, doesn't it?

--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
Farmers' Almanac, 1978
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/