On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I disaggree with the conversion of the BUG_ON though, a WARN there is > going to screw up unpredictably (well, a hard hang without any output > is the predictable outcome). I'd like to have asserts for things that > could and should be statically analyzed... Well I've put a zero-tolerance rule for BUG_ON into place with the only exception if the kernel will die anyway in the next few lines. Which means I trade in a limping (and potentially dangerous) kernel for the ability to be able to read the backtrace somewhere. I agree that any such extreme policy will end up looking stupid in some cases, but I've just decided that I wasted too much time on chasing lookups which would have been trivial to debug with a WARN_ON instead of a BUG_ON. Until I've wasted too much time with WARN_ON instead of BUG_ON I'll let it stick. And it's supported by my patch scripts, so small chance I'll miss one. Ofc I'll never change it without a notice in the commit message, so people can always blame me for it. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
