On Thursday 27 February 2014 16:16:45 Josh Triplett wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 08:19:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 February 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > This doesn't seem any different than compiling out assert() at runtime > > > in a userspace program, given how the kernel uses BUG() and BUG_ON(). > > > I'd argue that adding unreachable() doesn't seem like it makes the > > > current implementation of BUG() any worse; either way if you reach it > > > you have a problem. > > > > I think it's better to get a warning about undefined behavior than > > to suppress that warning. > > Then at this point I'm going to suggest that you go ahead and submit the > patch you want on top of the first four patches of this series. Sure, no problem. I'll wait for your patches to show up in linux-next and then do a patch on top. I'll be traveling for the next week, so it may get delayed another few days. > Please keep in mind the value and code size savings of !CONFIG_BUG, versus > CONFIG_BUG=y and !CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE; those mean two different > things. I think I compared all the options before in the patch I cited, https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/5/222 but I agree that the list is a bit confusing. > Meanwhile: Andrew, could you go ahead and apply the first four patches? Yes please. Arnd -- 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
