[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:0.171 / U:3.500 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site