[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290302298.31117.185.camel@Joe-Laptop>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:18:18 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <lasaine@....cs.msu.su>
Cc: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <yoush@...msu.su>,
linuxpps@...enneenne.com, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 10/17] pps: use BUG_ON for kernel API safety checks
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 03:40 +0300, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> В Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:01:41 -0800
> Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> пишет:
> > On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 17:13 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:01:03PM +0300, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > > This way less overhead is involved when running production kernel.
> > > > If you want to debug a pps client module please define DEBUG to enable
> > > > the checks.
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <lasaine@....cs.msu.su>
> > []
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pps/kapi.c b/drivers/pps/kapi.c
> > > > @@ -179,10 +168,8 @@ void pps_event(struct pps_device *pps, struct pps_event_time *ts, int event,
> > > > int captured = 0;
> > > > struct pps_ktime ts_real;
> > > > - if ((event & (PPS_CAPTUREASSERT | PPS_CAPTURECLEAR)) == 0) {
> > > > - dev_err(pps->dev, "unknown event (%x)\n", event);
> > > > - return;
> > > > - }
> > > > + /* check event type */
> > > > + BUG_ON((event & (PPS_CAPTUREASSERT | PPS_CAPTURECLEAR)) == 0);
> > > Ack.
> > > This is a correct usage of BUG_ON. :)
> > I don't think that's true.
> > /*
> > * Don't use BUG() or BUG_ON() unless there's really no way out; one
> > * example might be detecting data structure corruption in the middle
> > * of an operation that can't be backed out of. If the (sub)system
> > * can somehow continue operating, perhaps with reduced functionality,
> > * it's probably not BUG-worthy.
> > *
> > * If you're tempted to BUG(), think again: is completely giving up
> > * really the *only* solution? There are usually better options, where
> > * users don't need to reboot ASAP and can mostly shut down cleanly.
> > */
> Hmm, didn't check that before. What is more appropriate in this
> situation?
If it's really a non-recoverable event, perhaps emit a dev_crit
and then do a module_put?
--
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