lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] list_head debugging?
Hi,

Before Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Zach Brown wrote:

--- ./list.h.debug Thu Sep 19 15:58:47 2002
+++ ./list.h Fri Sep 20 13:43:21 2002
@@ -21,6 +21,25 @@

typedef struct list_head list_t;

+#define LIST_HEAD_DEBUGGING
+#ifdef LIST_HEAD_DEBUGGING
+
+static inline void __list_valid(struct list_head *list)
+{
+ BUG_ON(list == NULL);
+ BUG_ON(list->next == NULL);
+ BUG_ON(list->prev == NULL);
+ BUG_ON(list->next->prev != list);
+ BUG_ON(list->prev->next != list);
+ BUG_ON((list->next == list) && (list->prev != list));
+ BUG_ON((list->prev == list) && (list->next != list));
+}
+#else

It's all cool, but I'm not entirely convinced why it must be a BUG macro.
I'd rather have something said via printk here. If whatever we did was
bad, it will show up with a BUG() just too soon.

I'd describe a macro.

#define list_assert(cond) \
if (cond) printk(KERN_ERR "%s failed!\n", #cond)
Or the like. BTW, I'd define LIST_HEAD_DEBUGGING as 1.

Thunder
--
assert(typeof((fool)->next) == typeof(fool)); /* wrong */
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.177 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site