Re: The future of ubi_assert()

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 23:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Artem,
> 
> I'm not happy with ubi_assert().

Good start of an e-mail, immediately sets the goal - make Richard
happy :-)


> Currently it only prints a warning and a stack trace but execution
> continues.

Yeah, that was an idea initially, when this all was in process of
creation, and we were testing it a lot, and had problems. We did wanted
to see a warning, and then let things continue, and see what happens
next. And we put really a lot of them, and often they were bogus, and
sometimes it was good for production even, because a bogus assert did
not stop the whole thing.

>  In production nobody will notice and while developing turning
> it into a plain BUG_ON is most of the time more useful because execution stops
> exactly where the boo boo happens one can analyze stack/registers.

Sure, for some of the critical ones it BUG_ON is a better answer.

> I propose splitting ubi_assert() into two new functions.
> 
> 1. ubi_bug_on()
> Basically a BUG_ON(), it shall be used for assertions where execution of
> UBI cannot proceed and anything we can do is crashing the machine.

Just use plain BUG_ON() then.

> 2. ubi_warn_on()
> This macro shall be used for assertions where further execution is possible
> in read-only mode. ubi_warn_on() would be a WARN_ON() plus ubi_ro_mode().

OK, just use plain WARN_ON(). Many asserts can be just removed even, I
think.

> I'm sure that the vast majority of all ubi_asserts() can be turned into a ubi_warn_on().

The reason we introduced macros, originally, was that we did not want
all our asserts to be compiled in. Because we put them nearly
everywhere. Wrapping allowed us to compile them off when debugging was
disabled.

But nowadays many of them can be just killed, and we can use WARN_ON() /
BUG_ON() without wrapping them.