On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:43:07AM +0000, Haakon Bugge wrote: > > On 18 Oct 2022, at 22:49, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 08:30:01PM +0000, Jane Chu wrote: ... > > Obviously, to see the crash. And let kernel _to crash_. Isn't it what we need > > to see a bug as early as possible? > > If you follow that argument, why doesn't the kernel crash when the pointer > is, e.g., a NULL pointer? According to you, shouldn't it crash a early as > possible in that case also? Because it is _special_. It's not just an invalid pointer. There may be very well good cases where we supply (valid!) NULL pointers to the printf(). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
