[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100120105350.GA23394@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:53:50 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: monstr@...str.eu
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, michal.simek@...alogix.com,
arnd@...db.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...e.hu, joerg.roedel@....com
Subject: Re: Generic DMA - BUG_ON
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:08:30AM +0100, monstr@...str.eu wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have this patch in my repo. I just added BUG_ON for dma ops.
> The reason for that is if driver not setup ops correctly than
> the system do bad access to any memory space without any visible reason.
> BUG_ON points to it and helps to solve where the problem is.
I have a question of principle to raise here.
If you have code which does:
if (ops->foo)
ops->foo();
and ops is NULL, then this code will oops; you will get a full register
dump and backtrace. You can use this information along with markup_oops.pl
to find out where the problem is.
If you add a BUG_ON() to this, the only additional information you end
up with is (possibly) a nice friendly message which tells you the file
and line number - but you add additional run-time tests to the code.
The question is: is this worth it? Is there some problem with the
original oops that makes the problem hard to find? Should we be using
BUG_ON() to augment normal oopses in this way?
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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