On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ray Lee wrote: > > > I'm sorry, perhaps I poured myself a cup of stupid this morning, but > > isn't the above patch effectively introducing a BUG where none could > > be reached before? In other words, for the patch to have zero > > behavioral change, wouldn't it have to remove the BUG() altogether? > > True, but obviously not intended. I think the intention was to expose this > bug.
Arguing intentions is very dangerous. I've written code like that where the intention is to make it simple to turn a printk into a full bug and back and forth during development. At the end of the day, the fact remains that you're changing behavior. Let me turn this around. Do you have an alpha and have you tried out your patch? If not, then I'd suggest turning it into a WARN_ON(1) instead, as in this specific case you're risking turning what was a working system into one that doesn't. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
