lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:57:53 +0000 From: Roy Pledge <roy.pledge@...escale.com> To: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> CC: "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH 02/11] soc/fsl: Introduce DPAA BMan device management driver > > On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 13:36 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > On do, 2015-07-09 at 16:21 -0400, Roy Pledge wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_DPA_CHECKING > > > +#define DPA_ASSERT(x) \ > > > + do { \ > > > + if (!(x)) { \ > > > + pr_crit("ASSERT: (%s:%d) %s\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, \ > > > + __stringify_1(x)); \ > > > + dump_stack(); \ > > > + panic("assertion failure"); \ > > > > Not my call, but why panic() here? > > I'm pretty sure I've complained about this before (as well as all the > BUG_ONs). > Is the concern here just the call to panic()? I'm happy to change what happens when an issue is detected but the DPA_ASSERT() calls are very useful when testing changes to the driver and when bringing up the drivers on new silicon variants.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists