[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51E47924.9030005@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:35:16 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()
On 07/15/2013 03:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing
>> to do, and that maintaining it (and trying to fix the warnings it
>> produces) aren't worth the effort and that we should remove the whole
>> thing. Perhaps your patch changes that calculus, dunno. Please discuss.
>
> This isn't about introducing "CONFIG_BUG=n" - this is about making a
> kernel with CONFIG_BUG=n build without producing tonnes and tonnes of
> warnings, as it does today. It makes building randconfig pretty
> useless to find what could be more important warnings.
>
Well, there are three alternatives here, right:
1. We can use unreachable(), which means that the compiler can assume it
never happens.
2. We can trap without metadata.
3. We can trap with metadata (current CONFIG_BUG=y).
I am *guessing* this does 2, but it isn't clear.
-hpa
--
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