From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756350Ab1KNXiQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:38:16 -0500 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:45087 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753927Ab1KNXiO (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:38:14 -0500 Message-ID: <4EC1A65E.5040607@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:38:06 +1100 From: Ryan Mallon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Juhl CC: "David S. Miller" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , Changli Gao , Ben Greear , Chetan Loke , waltje@uWalt.NL.Mugnet.ORG, gw4pts@gw4pts.ampr.org, waltje@linux.com, ross.biro@gmail.com, alan@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/packet: remove dead code and unneeded variable from prb_setup_retire_blk_timer() References: <4EC0AA31.9040403@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 15/11/11 10:37, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Ryan Mallon wrote: > >> On 14/11/11 08:55, Jesper Juhl wrote: >> >>> We test for 'tx_ring' being != zero and BUG() if that's the case. So after >>> that check there is no way that 'tx_ring' could be anything _but_ zero, so >>> testing it again is just dead code. Once that dead code is removed, the >>> 'pkc' local variable becomes entirely redundant, so remove that as well. >> >> >> What if CONFIG_BUG=n? >> > > Arrgh, I didn't consider that (should have, but didn't).. In that case > we'll have > #define BUG() do {} while(0) > which is not going to work all that peachy with my change... > > David: You may want to pass on this one. I obviously didn't think it > through properly - sorry :-( > It's something I've never been entirely clear on. How are you meant to handle something which really is a fatal bug if CONFIG_BUG=n? I think there are several places in the kernel where the expectation is that BUG() causes a panic that probably don't behave nicely at all (though I guess that might be the expected behaviour) if CONFIG_BUG=n. ~Ryan