> On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:35 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> 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. I added a short comment for v3 above each BUG_ON(). > And since text_poke() can't fail, then it doesn't need a retval too. > AFAICT, nothing is actually using it. As Peter said, this is addressed in a separate patch (one patch per logical change).
