On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:52:18PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> No. The code as written above should reduce to:
>
> if (val == NULL)
> return -EFAULT;
>
> If I hadn't wanted to return -EFAULT in this case, I would have just written:
>
> WARN_ON(val == NULL);
Well the only reason I introduced
if (WARN_ON)
is so that what would otherwise be a BUG_ON condition would have
a chance to get written to disk when invoked from an IRQ handler.
> I don't want code that was running safely (ie returning -EFAULT) to
> start crashing the system just because I've, say, disabled printk.
> That's creating an obnoxious heisenbug.
I'm disappointed that it has been used in ways that it shouldn't
have been.
I suppose we'll have to either introduce a new primitive or just
go back to using BUG_ON.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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/
