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

> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
> > box:/usr/src/25> ~/checkpatch.pl 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
thing.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-28 12:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans