[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 08:31:57 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: suresh.b.siddha@...el.com
Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: mtd: kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/pat.c:279!
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
>
> yes but that is not a valid range I think because of the supported
> physical address bit limits of the processor and also the max
> architecture limit of 52 address bits.
But how could the caller possibly know that? None of those internal
PAT limits are exposed anywhere.
So doing the BUG_ON() is wrong. I'd suggest changing it to an EINVAL.
In fact, BUG_ON() is *always* wrong, unless it's a "my internal data
structures are so messed up that I cannot continue".
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