mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>
To: Michael Buesch <mbuesch@freenet.de>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>,
	axboe@suse.de, bunk@fs.tum.de, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
	Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>,
	arjanv@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: What policy for BUG_ON()?
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:32:39 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0C734E72-FBA6-11D8-9B58-000393ACC76E@mac.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200409010016.36570.mbuesch@freenet.de>

On Aug 31, 2004, at 18:16, Michael Buesch wrote:
> So, back to the real world. ;)
> - Where do we insert BUG_ON()s?
> Only in places, where we are going to crash or corrupt data soon.
>
> - Do we insert "expensive unnecessary function calls" in a BUG_ON()?
> No we don't. Could you give a good example, which
> needs an expensive call inside a BUG_ON()?

BUG_ON(len != strlen(string));

I don't want the strlen() executed on an embedded machine every time
I hit that piece of code, heck, probably not even my server if string 
is big
or if this code is executed many times.

> In a shiny good world we expect BUG()s to never trigger. So I think
> it's a bit crazy to check for things that theoretically can't happen
> and waste tons of CPU cycles for this, with expensive calls.
> If we really want to check this while debugging, I think we
> should explicitely honor the DEBUG define in the code and have
> our own debug printk() that shows the mess.
>
> I think here's a general confusion about what BUG_ON() is intended
> for. I think (I'm not the author of it, so I can't say 100%. :) )
> it is _not_ for debugging while development. It is for checking 
> unpossible
> things, that blow up the whole machine if they trigger nevertheless.
> So I think it's wrong to let BUG_ON() depend on a DEBUG define, because
> DEBUG is, by definition, not enabled in the kernels people use.
> But I think we _want_ that people evaluate the BUG_ON()s.

Ok, so then we need an additional config directive:

CONFIG_EMBEDDED_NODEBUG

Then:

#ifdef CONFIG_EMBEDDED_NODEBUG
# define BUG_ON(cond) do { if (cond); } while(0)
# define BUG_CHECK(cond) do { } while(0)
#else
# define BUG_ON(cond) do { if (cond) BUG(); } while(0)
# define BUG_CHECK(cond) do { if (cond) BUG(); } while(0)
#endif

#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG
# define DEBUG_ON(cond) do { } while(0)
#else
# define DEBUG_ON(cond) do { if (cond) BUG(); } while(0)
#endif

It's the _exact_same_ problem, with different definitions for which
mode is "debugging mode" in this particular case.  I agree with the
above email, but I think that for the embedded people, we should
define an extra macro that removes all excess tests, whether they
are expensive or inexpensive.  Then the BUG_ON() macro would
leave any checks in place in such a specialized compile, because
they may have required side effects.  A similar DEBUG_ON()
macro would be disabled for general users, but could be enabled
with DEBUG to provide the expensive checks, when a user is
experiencing problems.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a17 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r  
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


  reply	other threads:[~2004-08-31 23:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-08-31 15:06 Albert Cahalan
2004-08-31 16:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-08-31 17:39   ` Albert Cahalan
2004-08-31 21:30     ` Kyle Moffett
2004-08-31 22:16       ` Michael Buesch
2004-08-31 23:32         ` Kyle Moffett [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-08-30 20:15 Adrian Bunk
2004-08-30 20:22 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-08-31  6:28   ` Jens Axboe
2004-08-31 11:14     ` Paulo Marques
2004-08-31  0:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-08-31 11:28   ` Adrian Bunk

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0C734E72-FBA6-11D8-9B58-000393ACC76E@mac.com \
    --to=mrmacman_g4@mac.com \
    --cc=albert@users.sf.net \
    --cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=arjanv@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=bunk@fs.tum.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbuesch@freenet.de \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®