Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] s390x/css: introduce css data stream

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 18:36:00 +0200
Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 09/06/2017 02:51 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>>> +void ccw_dstream_init(CcwDataStream *cds, CCW1 const *ccw, ORB const *orb)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +    /*
> >>>> +     * We don't support MIDA (an optional facility) yet and we
> >>>> +     * catch this earlier. Just for expressing the precondition.
> >>>> +     */
> >>>> +    assert(!(orb->ctrl1 & ORB_CTRL1_MASK_MIDAW));    
> >>> I don't know, this is infrastructure, should it trust its callers? If
> >>> you keep the assert, please make it g_assert().    
> >>
> >> Why g_assert? I think g_assert comes form a test framework, this is not
> >> test code.  
> > g_assert() is glib, no?
> >   
> 
> It lives in GLib > GLib Utilities > Testing:
> https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Testing.html
> 
> The description of "Testing" starts like this: "GLib provides a framework
> for writing and maintaining unit tests in parallel to the code they are
> testing. The API is designed according to established concepts found in
> the other test frameworks (JUnit, NUnit, RUnit), which in turn is based
> on smalltalk unit testing concepts."
> 
> So yes, it's both glib and testing framework. This is why I
> ask why should one use g_assert in not-unit-test code.

I have searched the archives, but unfortunately was not able to come to
a conclusion. Checkpatch advises against using anything but g_assert or
g_assert_not_reached in anything but test code, but that is because
those other g_asserts can be made non-fatal. g_assert_not_reached does
not seem to have a non-glib equivalent.

I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that g_assert should be
preferred...