Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:32:49 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: -mm -> 2.6.13 merge status |
| |
On Thu, Jun 23 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.de> wrote: > > > > >>+ assert("nikita-955", pool != NULL); > > > > > > These assertion codes are meaningless to the rest of us so please drop > > > them. > > > > As someone who spends time debugging reiser3 issues, I've grown > > accustomed to the named assertions. They make discussing a particular > > assertion much more natural in conversation than file:line. > > __FUNCTION__?
Doesn't help a lot. I've also been annoyed several times in the past when having to lookup a BUG() for a kernel source I don't exactly have at hand right then and there. If you have constructs ala
function() { if (cond_a) BUG(); if (cond_b) BUG(); if (cond_c) BUG();
do_stuff... }
then it's impossible to know which one it is without the identical source at hand.
That said, I don't like the reiser name-number style. If you must do something like this, mark responsibility by using a named identifier covering the layer in question instead.
assert("trace_hash-89", is_hashed(foo) != 0);
or whatever.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |