[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [BK PATCH] USB changes for 2.5.34
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 11:40:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, David S. Miller wrote:
> >
> > IMO we should have ASSERT() and OHSHIT(),
> >
> > I fully support the addition of an OHSHIT() macro.
> Oh, please no. We'd end up with endless asserts in the networking layer,
> just because David would find it amusing.
> I can just see it now - code bloat hell.
> And no, I still don't like ASSERT().
> I think the approach should clearly spell what the trouble level is:
> DEBUG(x != y, "x=%d, y=%d\n", x, y);
> WARN(x != y, "crap happens: x=%d y=%d\n", x, y);
> FATAL(x != y, "Aiee: x=%d y=%d\n", x, y);
> where the DEBUG one gets compiled out normally (or has some nice per-file
> way of being enabled/disabled - a perfect world would expose the on/off in
> devicefs as a per-file entity when kernel debugging is on), WARN continues
> but writes a message (and normally does _not_ get compiled out), and FATAL
> is like our current BUG_ON().

Which still leaves the question, does it really make sense for
FATAL/BUG to forcibly kill the machine? If the bug is truly fatal,
presumably the machine kills itself in short order anyway, otherwise
we might have a shot at recording the situation. A more useful
distinction might be in terms of risk of damaging filesystems (or perhaps
hardware) if we continue, something like BROKEN/DANGEROUSLY_BROKEN.

"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
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: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.105 / U:6.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site