[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx1GMWGgh0sTAzvvVSzPQsQ_4NKeaNv1zpKrP4fg1dG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:57:56 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove BUG() in possible but rare condition
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> I am not familiar with the code much but a trivial call chain walk up to
> write_dev_supers (in btrfs) shows that we do not check for the return value
> from __getblk so we would nullptr and there might be more.
> I guess these need some treat before the BUG might be removed, right?
Well, realistically, isn't BUG() as bad as a NULL pointer dereference?
Do you care about the exact message on the screen when your machine dies?
Linus
--
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