[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150608112917.GB20511@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 13:29:17 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Louis Langholtz <lou_langholtz@...com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Trivial patch monkey <trivial@...nel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debug: Deprecate BUG_ON() use in new code, introduce
CRASH_ON()
* Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
> > Also note that BUG_ON() will make data corruption _worse_ statistically. Why?
> > Because most data corruptions are unlikely to be perfectly detected by a
> > BUG_ON(), and the BUG_ON() delays the finding of the underlying bug, so the
> > bug will hit more people before it's fixed for good.
> >
> > So even in the cases where you could argue that the system needs to stop,
> > because we have evidence of data corruption, it's statistically the better
> > approach to continue and get kernel log info back to developers.
>
> Risking more, maybe even worse problems like corrupting file systems or similiar
> in order to have a slightly chance of save log info?
That's not what I said - please read my argument and argue with that if you want,
not with some other straw-man argument...
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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