Hi, On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 22:45 -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> Hi, >> >> [CC: list reduced as starting a new thread, most on the context >> removed as this concern a different issue.] >> >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM, <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> [...] >> > The kernel needs to complain *loudly* if this occurs because it >> > represents a bug. I'm tempted to say use BUG, but that would halt the >> > kernel and prevent any possibility of kernel log output. >> > [...] >> does it ? if CONFIG_BUG is not enabled and the arch has no define for >> it, the default does _nothing_: > > That's because CONFIG_BUG=N is intended for machines where logging is > irrelevant/impossible. > Yes, but it is still a no-op, where the original programmer made it clear he did not want the kernel to go further. > You are encouraged to ignore all options under > CONFIG_EMBEDDED when trying to have a sensible discussion. > Unless it creates a situation where it does the opposite of what the intended behavior, I would guess. - Arnaud -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
