Re: [PATCH] x86: apic: convert BUG() to BUG_ON()

[Cyrill Gorcunov]

[Daniel Walker - Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:40:20AM -0700]
| This was done using Coccinelle's BUG_ON semantic patch.
| 
| Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>
| ---
|  arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c |    3 +--
|  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
| 
| diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
| index a34601f..e3d467e 100644
| --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
| +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
| @@ -1197,8 +1197,7 @@ void __cpuinit setup_local_APIC(void)
|  	 * Double-check whether this APIC is really registered.
|  	 * This is meaningless in clustered apic mode, so we skip it.
|  	 */
| -	if (!apic->apic_id_registered())
| -		BUG();
| +	BUG_ON(!apic->apic_id_registered());
|  
|  	/*
|  	 * Intel recommends to set DFR, LDR and TPR before enabling
| -- 
| 1.5.6.3
| 

Hi Daniel,

I believe having a changelog like

	Use short form of "if() BUG()" sequence

would be better perhaps? Since "Coccinelle's BUG_ON semantic patch"
somehow doesn't describe why it's done.

Don't get me wrong please. It's trivial and seen from patch
itself _why_ it's done though changelog doesn't say the same.

Perhaps I'm too nagging :) Feel free to ignore me.

	-- Cyrill
--
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/