Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

[Ingo Molnar]

* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 07/15/2013 03:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing
> >> to do, and that maintaining it (and trying to fix the warnings it
> >> produces) aren't worth the effort and that we should remove the whole
> >> thing.  Perhaps your patch changes that calculus, dunno.  Please discuss.
> > 
> > This isn't about introducing "CONFIG_BUG=n" - this is about making a
> > kernel with CONFIG_BUG=n build without producing tonnes and tonnes of
> > warnings, as it does today.  It makes building randconfig pretty
> > useless to find what could be more important warnings.
> > 
> 
> Well, there are three alternatives here, right:
> 
> 1. We can use unreachable(), which means that the compiler can assume it
> never happens.

AFAICS this is dangerous as it loses warnings and moves execution into 
la-la-land without any obvious sign at the C level.

> 2. We can trap without metadata.

This is what the patch does.

> 3. We can trap with metadata (current CONFIG_BUG=y).

That is still kept with the patch.

> I am *guessing* this does 2, but it isn't clear.

Yes, that's what it does - and I think it's the best of all worlds:

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>

(the crazies can keep a separate patch to remove even more of BUG() to win 
a K or two.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/