[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: checkpatch, a patch checking script.
    On 28 Apr 2007 12:48:55 +0200 Andi Kleen <> wrote:

    > Andrew Morton <> writes:
    > > box:/usr/src/25> ~/ patches/slub-core.patch
    > > Checking patches/slub-core.patch: signoffs = 30
    > > Use WARN_ON & Recovery code rather than BUG() and BUG_ON()
    > The warning is bogus imho. How do you write recovery code for internal
    > broken code logic?

    Yes, it is marginal. But people do very often reach for BUG_ON() where
    they could have at least partly recovered in some fashion - enough for the
    info to hit the logs so we have a better chance of fixing it.

    BUG_ON() is of course sometimes the right thing to do, but the idea here is
    to suggest to the developers that they put a bit of thought into whether it
    was really justified.

    This little checking tool should have both "error" and "warning" levels -
    AKA "fix this" and "think about this" levels. BUG_ON would be a warning

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-28 12:05    [W:0.023 / U:8.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site