[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ECB6080.7050407@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:42:40 +0100
From: DM <dm.n9107@...il.com>
To: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
CC: ralf@...ux-mips.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Stop some of the abuse of BUG() where compile time
checks should be used.
On 2011-11-22 02:31, David Daney wrote:
> From: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
>
> After some, perhaps justified, reluctance to merge dummy symbol
> definitions containing BUG() into header files, I propose these patches
> instead.
>
> We define a new compile time assertion BUILD_BUG_ON_USED() that can be
> used in places were we expect the compiler's dead code elimination to
> get rid of code. This happens mostly in code dealing with huge pages,
> but in other places as well.
>
> The first patch adds BUILD_BUG_ON_USED(), the second gets rid of one
> of the main abusers of BUG().
>
Perhaps BUILD_BUG() is a more consistent name for this?
We would then have BUG() and BUG_ON(x) for run-time vs BUILD_BUG() and BUILD_BUG_ON(x) for compile-time.
/DM
--
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