On 06/19/2014 01:01 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 09:15:36PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> + BUG_ON(f1->context != f2->context); >>>>> >>>>> Nice, you just crashed the kernel, making it impossible to debug or >>>>> recover :( >>>> >>>> agreed, that should probably be 'if (WARN_ON(...)) return NULL;' >>>> >>>> (but at least I wouldn't expect to hit that under console_lock so you >>>> should at least see the last N lines of the backtrace on the screen >>>> ;-)) >>> >>> Lots of devices don't have console screens :) >> >> Aside: This is a pet peeve of mine and recently I've switched to >> rejecting all patch that have a BUG_ON, period. > > Please do, I have been for a few years now as well for the same reasons > you cite. > I'm actually concerned about this trend. Downgrading things to WARN_ON can allow a security bug in the kernel to continue to exist, for example, or make the error message disappear. I am wondering if the right thing here isn't to have a user (command line?) settable policy as to how to proceed on an assert violation, instead of hardcoding it at compile time. -hpa _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
