On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:35:33PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:31:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > ... > > > > So while in general I agree with BUG_ON() being undesirable, I think > > liberal sprinking in text_poke() is fine; you really _REALLY_ want this > > to work or fail loudly. Text corruption is just painful. > > Ok. It would be good to have the gist of this sentiment in a comment > above it so that it is absolutely clear why we're doing it. > > And since text_poke() can't fail, then it doesn't need a retval too. > AFAICT, nothing is actually using it. See patch 12, that removes the return value (after fixing the few users that currently 'rely' on it).
