2012/3/6 David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> It's unnecessary to BUG() in situations when a mempolicy has an
> unsupported mode, it just means that a mode doesn't have complete coverage
> in all mempolicy functions -- which is an error, but not a fatal error --
> or that a bit has flipped. Regardless, it's sufficient to warn the user
> in the kernel log of the situation once and then proceed without crashing
> the system.
>
> This patch converts nearly all the BUG()'s in mm/mempolicy.c to
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1) and provides the necessary code to return successfully.
I'm sorry. I simple don't understand the purpose of this patch. every
mem policy syscalls have input check then we can't hit BUG()s in
mempolicy.c. To me, BUG() is obvious notation than WARN_ON_ONCE().
We usually use WARN_ON_ONCE() for hw drivers code. Because of, the
warn-on mean "we believe this route never reach, but we afraid there
is crazy buggy hardware".
And, now BUG() has renreachable() annotation. why don't it work?
#define BUG() \
do { \
asm volatile("ud2"); \
unreachable(); \
} while (0)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href