Hi Guenter, On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 10:42:01 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > An implementation error should not crash the kernel if it is avoidable. > Replace BUG() with WARN_ONCE(). > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/hwmon/ltc2945.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/ltc2945.c b/drivers/hwmon/ltc2945.c > index c104cc3..c9cddf5 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/ltc2945.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/ltc2945.c > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -/* > + /* > * Driver for Linear Technology LTC2945 I2C Power Monitor > * > * Copyright (c) 2014 Guenter Roeck > @@ -314,8 +314,8 @@ static ssize_t ltc2945_reset_history(struct device *dev, > reg = LTC2945_MAX_ADIN_H; > break; > default: > - BUG(); > - break; > + WARN_ONCE(1, "Bad register: 0x%x\n", reg); > + return -EINVAL; > } > /* Reset maximum */ > ret = regmap_bulk_write(regmap, reg, buf_max, num_regs); Agreed. -EINVAL may be confusing though, as this normally means the user input was invalid (which isn't the case here.) Maybe we can come up with a better error code. Maybe -EFAULT? Or be original and use -EBADSLT? ;) It's purely theoretical anyway, as we both know that this piece of code is never going to be executed. TBH if it was me I would just drop this test altogether. But anyway: Reviewed-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
