Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:23:28 -0700 | From | Brian Norris <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: BUG_ON in case of no select_chip and cmd_ctrl |
| |
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:16:11PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:11:54 -0700 > Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote: > > > Am 19.07.2016 um 18:12 schrieb Boris Brezillon: > > >>>> Not sure a BUG_ON() is worst than a NULL-pointer exception ;-). > > >>> > > >>> When this really just triggers a NULL-pointer exception, we don't need a BUG_ON or WARN_ON at > > >>> all since the kernel can tell anyway what went wrong. > > >> > > >> Hm, that's not entirely true, depending on your debug options you don't > > >> have all the information to guess which line triggered the NULL pointer > > >> exception, and this makes it harder to debug. > > >> And I agree with Andrey here, it's better to complain at registration > > >> time than letting the controller register all its NAND devices and > > >> generate exceptions when the NAND is really used. > > >> > > >> BTW, I don't quite understand the rational behind BUG_ON() eradication. > > >> I agree that they should not be used when the driver can recover from a > > >> specific failure, but that's not really the case here (some NAND > > >> controller drivers don't check nand_scan_tail() or nand_scan() return > > >> code). > > > > > > I've been told that new code (except core code) should not BUG()/_ON(). > > > > > >> The best solution would probably be to patch all those drivers and then > > >> return an error when one of the mandatory hooks is missing, but in the > > >> meantime I don't see any problem in adding BUG_ON() calls. > > > > > > Yes, definitely. > > > > I don't have any preferences as far BUG_ON/WARN_ON are concerned and > > am more than happy to change one for another. > > > > The reason I came up with that patch is that I stumbled on that > > segfault (by not providing custom select_chip() and not setting up > > cmd_ctrl()) and it took me good 20 minutes to figure out the nature of > > the problem, whereas, IMHO, having a BUG/WARN statement at the would > > have been more self-documenting/explanatory.
Would a normal print statement and error return have helped, like most sane drivers? Like:
if (!chip->cmd_ctrl) { pr_err("No cmd_ctrl() provided\n"); return -EINVAL; }
> > What if I modify the patch to change nand_set_default's signature to > > return a error code, add corresponding checking in > > nand_get_flash_type()/nand_scan_ident() and replace BUG_ON with > > WARN_ON? Would it be more agreeable solution?
Sounds better to me, though I still don't see why even WARN_ON() is necessary. I guess we are infected by plenty of those already anyway, since I guess that's easier than writing a descriptive error message...
> Agreed.
Glad we're on mostly the same page.
Brian
| |