On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:10:58 +0200 Michael Buesch <mb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So the principle of least surprise tells us "this shouldn't be called > > assert()". > > Well, I do know that userspace assert() terminates the program. > But, in the kernel we use BUG() for this. > So let's better rename BUG() to assert() ;) > No just kidding. > IMO the word "assert" is short and to the point what this code > is actually doing. It asserts that a condition is true and > complains otherwise. > > Let's make a deal, Andrew. > As I almost always do assert(0), I will remove the assert() macro > and introduce a macro SSB_CAN_NOT_REACH() or something like that > to mark codepaths that can not be reached. > I'll replace the rest of the assert()s that check an actual condition > with WARN_ON. > OK? I don't understand all the fuss. When I looked at that code I assumed that your assert() implementation would be a wrapper of some from around a BUG(). But it wasn't. A suitable way of preventing others from being similarly surprised would be to call it something other than assert(). That's all. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
