Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Looks useful, but i'd suggest to make this a variant of the standard > BUG_ON()/WARN_ON() checks we already have, not an explicit assert(). > > BUG_ON_VERBOSE() or such. I personally prefer the positive check (ASSERT() saying that this expression must be true) as opposed to the negative check (BUG_ON() saying that this must be false). I find it easier to think about the logic (I expect value X to be like this, value Y to be like that, etc.). That said, I could make the base bit BUG_VERBOSE(FMT, ...) and wrap ASSERT*() around that. However, I'd _much_ rather make it so that I can post the "cut here" message early - but, IIRC, Linus hated that idea. > I find assert()'s inversion confusing when mixed with WARN_ON()/BUG_ON(). Why did we do it this way originally, rather than using assert, I wonder? Especially since the concept of assert already exists in userspace. > Likewise, the message of: > > ASSERTION FAILED at fs/dcache.c:863! > > is rather confusing to me (i never know how the condition printed is > to be interpreted) - why not use the usual 'BUG: ...' message > convention? I don't see why it should be confusing. Something bad happened at file:line. I could make it print "BUG" instead. That's a minor matter. The ASSERT macros in patch 2 could then generate a report that looks like this: ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/fscache/main.c:109! Assertion failed: 2 > c is false invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
