From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
To: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: [patch 2.6.28-rc6] when to BUG(), and when to not BUG()
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:21:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200811291921.30759.david-b@pacbell.net> (raw)
From: David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>
Provide some basic advice about when to use BUG()/BUG_ON():
never, unless there's really no better option.
This matches my understanding of the standard policy ... which
seems not to be written down so far, outside of LKML messages
that I haven't bookmarked.
Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>
---
This arguably belongs in patch checklists too... but I figure we
should start by flushing out any contrary opinions.
include/asm-generic/bug.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
--- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
@@ -20,6 +20,17 @@ struct bug_entry {
#define BUGFLAG_WARNING (1<<0)
#endif /* CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG */
+/*
+ * Don't use BUG() or BUG_ON() unless there's really no way out; one
+ * example might be detecting data structure corruption in the middle
+ * of an operation that can't be backed out of. If the (sub)system
+ * can somehow continue operating, perhaps with reduced functionality,
+ * it's probably not BUG-worthy.
+ *
+ * If you're tempted to BUG(), think again: is completely giving up
+ * really the *only* solution? There are usually better options, where
+ * users don't need to reboot ASAP and can mostly shut down cleanly.
+ */
#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG
#define BUG() do { \
printk("BUG: failure at %s:%d/%s()!\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__); \
@@ -31,6 +42,12 @@ struct bug_entry {
#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (unlikely(condition)) BUG(); } while(0)
#endif
+/*
+ * WARN(), WARN_ON(), WARN_ON_ONCE, and so on can be used to report
+ * significant issues that need prompt attention if they should ever
+ * appear at runtime. Use the versions with printk format strings
+ * to provide better diagnostics.
+ */
#ifndef __WARN
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
extern void warn_on_slowpath(const char *file, const int line);
next reply other threads:[~2008-11-30 3:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-30 3:21 David Brownell [this message]
2008-11-30 4:19 ` Andrew Morton
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=200811291921.30759.david-b@pacbell.net \
--to=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hverkuil@xs4all.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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
Powered by JetHome