From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH 2/14 v2] nes: device structures and defines Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:22:44 -0700 Message-ID: References: <200710192004.l9JK48dm021704@neteffect.com> <20071019220015.3faa9bbb@freepuppy.rosehill> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, ewg@lists.openfabrics.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071019220015.3faa9bbb@freepuppy.rosehill> (Stephen Hemminger's message of "Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:00:15 -0700") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org Errors-To: general-bounces@lists.openfabrics.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > You are starting off on the wrong foot. ??? > > +if(!(expr)) { \ > > + printk(KERN_ERR PFX "Assertion failed! %s, %s, %s, line %d\n", \ > > + #expr, __FILE__, __FUNCTION__, __LINE__); \ > > +} > > Use BUG_ON I agree that there's no need to invent a driver-private assertion macro, but (to first order at least) drivers should never use BUG_ON. I don't want some glitch in a network driver that the system could probably survive to be turned into a panic by BUG_ON -- WARN_ON seems infinitely preferable. - R.