From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: What policy for BUG_ON()?
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:15:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040830201519.GH12134@fs.tum.de> (raw)
Let me try to summarize the different options regarding BUG_ON,
concerning whether the argument to BUG_ON might contain side effects,
and whether it should be allowed in some "do this only if you _really_
know what you are doing" situations to let BUG_ON do nothing.
Options:
1. BUG_ON must not be defined to do nothing
1a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
1b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
2. BUG_ON is allowed to be defined to do nothing
2a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
2b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON
It would be good if there was a decision which of the four choices
should become documented policy.
<-- snip -->
My personal opinions:
IMHO, 1b doesn't make much sense, since in the case of 1. side effects
are never a problem.
IMHO, 2b is bad since it might cause nasty heisenbugs if BUG_ON does
nothing, and preserving the side effects is easy.
<-- snip -->
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next reply other threads:[~2004-08-30 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-30 20:15 Adrian Bunk [this message]
2004-08-30 20:22 ` What policy for BUG_ON()? Arjan van de Ven
2004-08-31 6:28 ` Jens Axboe
2004-08-31 11:14 ` Paulo Marques
2004-08-31 0:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-08-31 11:28 ` Adrian Bunk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-08-31 15:06 Albert Cahalan
2004-08-31 16:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-08-31 17:39 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-08-31 21:30 ` Kyle Moffett
2004-08-31 22:16 ` Michael Buesch
2004-08-31 23:32 ` Kyle Moffett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040830201519.GH12134@fs.tum.de \
--to=bunk@fs.tum.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox