[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140121090229.5936c2ba@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:02:29 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/8] x86: allow to handle errors in text_poke
function family
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 14:00:37 +0100
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz> wrote:
> > > There are some situations where it is hard to recover from an error. Masami
> > > Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com> suggested to create
> > > text_poke*_or_die() variants for this purpose.
> >
> > I don't like the "_or_die()". Although I don't care much about it, I'm
> > thinking the x86 maintainers might not like it either.
> >
> > What about just doing the test in the places that would call "or_die"?
> >
> > ret = text_poke*();
> > BUG_ON(ret);
>
> Exactly this solution has been used in v5 of this patch set, see
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/3/258
>
> Masami suggested to use the "or_die()" because BUG_ON() was used on most
> locations, see https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/6/1107
If BUG_ON() is used in most locations, then we can make text_poke()
default to bug, and the just have a text_poke_safe() function that does
not bug. Or some similar name.
The "_die" has a bad taste in several developers mouth ;-)
-- Steve
--
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