Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:28:19 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: What policy for BUG_ON()? |
| |
On Mon, Aug 30 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 22:15, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Let me try to summarize the different options regarding BUG_ON, > > concerning whether the argument to BUG_ON might contain side effects, > > and whether it should be allowed in some "do this only if you _really_ > > know what you are doing" situations to let BUG_ON do nothing. > > > > Options: > > 1. BUG_ON must not be defined to do nothing > > 1a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON > > 1b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON > > 2. BUG_ON is allowed to be defined to do nothing > > 2a. side effects are allowed in the argument of BUG_ON > > 2b. side effects are not allowed in the argument of BUG_ON > > since you quoted me earlier my 2 cents: > 1) I would prefer BUG_ON() arguments to not have side effects; its just > cleaner that way. (similar to assert) > > 2) if one wants to compiel out BUG_ON, I rather alias it to panic() than > to nothing.
I agree completely with that.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |