Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] wl12xx: add RX data filter ACX commands

[Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>]

On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 18:05 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: 
> Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 16:07 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: 
> >> Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> >> +	if (index >= WL1271_MAX_RX_DATA_FILTERS) {
> >> >> +		wl1271_warning("acx_set_rx_data_filter: invalid filter idx(%d)",
> >> >> +			       index);
> >> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> >> +	}
> >> >
> >> > Should we use BUG_ON instead? This is only used internally in the
> >> > driver, so if it get here, it's a bug.  And if the filters come from
> >> > userspace, we should validate them before continuing anyway.
> >> 
> >> BUG_ON() is evil and wireless drivers should really not use it,
> >> WARN_ON_ONCE() and return with an error is much more user friendly.
> >
> > Yeah, BUG_ON() is evil, but sometimes it can be good to have.
> 
> What good does BUG_ON() bring compared to WARN_ON_ONCE()? For example,
> does BUG_ON() even get logged to disk? Most likely not, so
> WARN_ON_ONCE() is much easier to report by the users.
> 
> > I don't agree with "wireless drivers should really not use it". There
> > are 181 occurrences in wireless-testing/master right now[1].
> 
> Then there are 181 misuses of BUG_ON() ;)

:D


> > I'm not saying this measure is either accurate or an excuse to use it
> > where we shouldn't, but it shows that it really has widespread usage
> > in wireless drivers.
> 
> Yes, and that's why I have started a war against misuse of BUG_ON() :)

Okay, I will definitely not be in the frontline against you in this
war. :)


-- 
Cheers,
Luca.