Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:29:56 -0600 (MDT) | From | Thunder from the hill <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] list_head debugging? |
| |
Hi,
Before Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Zach Brown wrote:
--- ./list.h.debug Thu Sep 19 15:58:47 2002 +++ ./list.h Fri Sep 20 13:43:21 2002 @@ -21,6 +21,25 @@ typedef struct list_head list_t; +#define LIST_HEAD_DEBUGGING +#ifdef LIST_HEAD_DEBUGGING + +static inline void __list_valid(struct list_head *list) +{ + BUG_ON(list == NULL); + BUG_ON(list->next == NULL); + BUG_ON(list->prev == NULL); + BUG_ON(list->next->prev != list); + BUG_ON(list->prev->next != list); + BUG_ON((list->next == list) && (list->prev != list)); + BUG_ON((list->prev == list) && (list->next != list)); +} +#else
It's all cool, but I'm not entirely convinced why it must be a BUG macro. I'd rather have something said via printk here. If whatever we did was bad, it will show up with a BUG() just too soon.
I'd describe a macro.
#define list_assert(cond) \ if (cond) printk(KERN_ERR "%s failed!\n", #cond) Or the like. BTW, I'd define LIST_HEAD_DEBUGGING as 1.
Thunder -- assert(typeof((fool)->next) == typeof(fool)); /* wrong */ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |