[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4639A34A.5030904@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 10:54:34 +0200
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@...hat.com>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux1394-devel <linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] firewire: isochronous and asynchronous I/O
Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[...]
>>> + retval = fw_core_add_descriptor(&model_id_descriptor);
>>> + BUG_ON(retval < 0);
>>
>> These kinds of bug checks look wrong. Either the operations
>> can't fail in which case they should not return an error value
>> or you should handle them properly.
>
> The fw_core_add_descriptor() checks that the descriptor block it's passed is
> internally consistent and is used for blocks passed in from userspace too. In
> these two cases, the blocks are static const arrays in the driver and if
> fw_core_add_descriptor returns < 0 it's a bug in the driver.
When you submitted it, I too wondered whether these BUG_ONs are correct
(they are) and whether they are worth having (not so sure).
A plus of a smaller stack is that we need less assertions to guard its
integrity. :-)
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= ---==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists