public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: DM <dm.n9107@gmail.com>
To: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>
Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Stop some of the abuse of BUG() where compile time checks should be used.
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:42:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ECB6080.7050407@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1321925466-11280-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>

On 2011-11-22 02:31, David Daney wrote:
> From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
> 
> After some, perhaps justified, reluctance to merge dummy symbol
> definitions  containing BUG() into header files, I propose these patches
> instead.
> 
> We define a new compile time assertion BUILD_BUG_ON_USED() that can be
> used in places were we expect the compiler's dead code elimination to
> get rid of code.  This happens mostly in code dealing with huge pages,
> but in other places as well.
> 
> The first patch adds BUILD_BUG_ON_USED(), the second gets rid of one
> of the main abusers of BUG().
> 

Perhaps BUILD_BUG() is a more consistent name for this?

We would then have BUG() and BUG_ON(x) for run-time vs BUILD_BUG() and BUILD_BUG_ON(x) for compile-time.

/DM

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-11-22  8:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-22  1:31 [PATCH 0/2] Stop some of the abuse of BUG() where compile time checks should be used David Daney
2011-11-22  1:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] kernel.h: Add BUILD_BUG_ON_USED() macro David Daney
2011-11-22  4:35   ` Linus Torvalds
2011-11-22  1:31 ` [PATCH 2/2] hugetlb: Replace BUG() with BUILD_BUG_ON_USED() for dummy definitions David Daney
2011-11-22  8:42 ` DM [this message]
2011-11-22 17:13   ` [PATCH 0/2] Stop some of the abuse of BUG() where compile time checks should be used Linus Torvalds

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=4ECB6080.7050407@gmail.com \
    --to=dm.n9107@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david.daney@cavium.com \
    --cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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