On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 18:05 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 16:07 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> Luciano Coelho <coelho@xxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> >> + if (index >= WL1271_MAX_RX_DATA_FILTERS) {
> >> >> + wl1271_warning("acx_set_rx_data_filter: invalid filter idx(%d)",
> >> >> + index);
> >> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> >> + }
> >> >
> >> > Should we use BUG_ON instead? This is only used internally in the
> >> > driver, so if it get here, it's a bug. And if the filters come from
> >> > userspace, we should validate them before continuing anyway.
> >>
> >> BUG_ON() is evil and wireless drivers should really not use it,
> >> WARN_ON_ONCE() and return with an error is much more user friendly.
> >
> > Yeah, BUG_ON() is evil, but sometimes it can be good to have.
>
> What good does BUG_ON() bring compared to WARN_ON_ONCE()? For example,
> does BUG_ON() even get logged to disk? Most likely not, so
> WARN_ON_ONCE() is much easier to report by the users.
>
> > I don't agree with "wireless drivers should really not use it". There
> > are 181 occurrences in wireless-testing/master right now[1].
>
> Then there are 181 misuses of BUG_ON() ;)
:D
> > I'm not saying this measure is either accurate or an excuse to use it
> > where we shouldn't, but it shows that it really has widespread usage
> > in wireless drivers.
>
> Yes, and that's why I have started a war against misuse of BUG_ON() :)
Okay, I will definitely not be in the frontline against you in this
war. :)
--
Cheers,
Luca.
--
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
