Re: [PATCH 2/4] bug: completely remove code of disabled VM_BUG_ON()

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 00:32, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:40:32 +0200
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 13:26, Konstantin Khlebnikov
>> <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Even if CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=n gcc genereates code for some VM_BUG_ON()
>>
>> That's because of the side effects of the expression
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/4/25/146
>>
>> But IRIC, we do want them here?
>>
>
> AFAICT (lkml.org appears to be having a meltdown), you've gone and
> linked to this very thread.
>
> Please try again, this time avoiding hyperlinks ;)

Yeah, I noticed after the fact. I wanted to look up the definition of
unused_expression(), which obviously wasn't in my tree yet ;-)

Still, I think people started relyong on the side effects, didn't they?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

            Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
             Â Â -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/