Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:20:34 +0200 | From | Helge Hafting <> | Subject | Re: Must check what? |
| |
Vadim Lobanov wrote: > On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:43, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> I like assertions personally. If we had something like: >> >> void foo(args) >> { >> locals; >> >> assert_irqs_enabled(); >> assert_spin_locked(some_lock); >> assert_in_atomic(); >> assert_mutex_locked(some_mutex); >> >> then we get documentation which is (optionally) checked at runtime - best >> of both worlds. Better than doing it in kernel-doc. Automatically >> self-updating (otherwise kernels go BUG). >> > > Uhoh! How much is that going to hurt runtime? :) It actually seems to me like > this should be doable by static code analysis tools without terribly much > pain (in the relative sense of the term). Or am I wrong on this thought? > Surely, any debugging that hurts will only really be there if you enable CONFIG_DEBUG_something
The kind of stuff you ask people to turn on when they report strange crashes.
Helge Hafting - 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/
| |