From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:36:52 +0100 Subject: [Cocci] Warning masked by BUG() when CONFIG_BUG is enabled In-Reply-To: <20131117002651.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Sun, 17 Nov 2013 00:26:51 +0000") References: <87a9h4559j.fsf@natisbad.org> <20131117002651.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <8738mvx3rv.fsf@natisbad.org> To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Hi Russell, Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:52:08PM +0100, Arnaud Ebalard wrote: >> I was kind of curious not to have noticed it during kernel builds for >> armada 370/xp targets. The reason is the following: on my Armada 370/XP >> builds, I had CONFIG_BUG=y which makes BUG() call panic() (which never >> returns). > > You're not the first to spot this, and you won't be the last. > > Some very experienced kernel hackers have tried to get this fixed and > failed. It seems people actually want the CPU to fall through the > BUG() sites when people disable CONFIG_BUG - which I think is idiotic. > > Arnd (and myself) have worked on this problem, and we came up with a > very nice solution which didn't increase the size of the kernel and > didn't make things unsafe. However, it went nowhere. > > It's pointless trying to get this fixed - it's just a complete waste of > time because of politics. Find something else to attack. Just ensure > you always have CONFIG_BUG enabled if you want a system which will > produce some kind of report when one of these sites gets hit. Understood. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, a+ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard) Subject: Re: Warning masked by BUG() when CONFIG_BUG is enabled Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:36:52 +0100 Message-ID: <8738mvx3rv.fsf@natisbad.org> References: <87a9h4559j.fsf@natisbad.org> <20131117002651.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.3]:58179 "EHLO smtp3-g21.free.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753558Ab3KQAhV (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:37:21 -0500 Received: from smtp.natisbad.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e35:139b:9f90:221:70ff:fe55:8f78]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE35FA6185 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:37:10 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20131117002651.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Sun, 17 Nov 2013 00:26:51 +0000") Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Linus Walleij , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Julia Lawall Hi Russell, Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:52:08PM +0100, Arnaud Ebalard wrote: >> I was kind of curious not to have noticed it during kernel builds for >> armada 370/xp targets. The reason is the following: on my Armada 370/XP >> builds, I had CONFIG_BUG=y which makes BUG() call panic() (which never >> returns). > > You're not the first to spot this, and you won't be the last. > > Some very experienced kernel hackers have tried to get this fixed and > failed. It seems people actually want the CPU to fall through the > BUG() sites when people disable CONFIG_BUG - which I think is idiotic. > > Arnd (and myself) have worked on this problem, and we came up with a > very nice solution which didn't increase the size of the kernel and > didn't make things unsafe. However, it went nowhere. > > It's pointless trying to get this fixed - it's just a complete waste of > time because of politics. Find something else to attack. Just ensure > you always have CONFIG_BUG enabled if you want a system which will > produce some kind of report when one of these sites gets hit. Understood. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, a+ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 01:36:52 +0100 Subject: Warning masked by BUG() when CONFIG_BUG is enabled In-Reply-To: <20131117002651.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Sun, 17 Nov 2013 00:26:51 +0000") References: <87a9h4559j.fsf@natisbad.org> <20131117002651.GX16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <8738mvx3rv.fsf@natisbad.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Russell, Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 11:52:08PM +0100, Arnaud Ebalard wrote: >> I was kind of curious not to have noticed it during kernel builds for >> armada 370/xp targets. The reason is the following: on my Armada 370/XP >> builds, I had CONFIG_BUG=y which makes BUG() call panic() (which never >> returns). > > You're not the first to spot this, and you won't be the last. > > Some very experienced kernel hackers have tried to get this fixed and > failed. It seems people actually want the CPU to fall through the > BUG() sites when people disable CONFIG_BUG - which I think is idiotic. > > Arnd (and myself) have worked on this problem, and we came up with a > very nice solution which didn't increase the size of the kernel and > didn't make things unsafe. However, it went nowhere. > > It's pointless trying to get this fixed - it's just a complete waste of > time because of politics. Find something else to attack. Just ensure > you always have CONFIG_BUG enabled if you want a system which will > produce some kind of report when one of these sites gets hit. Understood. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers, a+