[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200429072629.GE11410@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:26:29 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Zou Wei <zou_wei@...wei.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] blk-mq: Use BUG_ON() instead of BUG()
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Zou Wei wrote:
> Fixes coccicheck warning:
>
> block/blk-mq.c:546:2-5: WARNING: Use BUG_ON instead of if condition followed by BUG.
>
> Fixes: 63151a449eba ("blk-mq: allow drivers to hook into I/O completion")
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zou Wei <zou_wei@...wei.com>
> ---
> block/blk-mq.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index bcc3a23..49a227e 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -542,8 +542,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__blk_mq_end_request);
>
> void blk_mq_end_request(struct request *rq, blk_status_t error)
> {
> - if (blk_update_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
> - BUG();
> + BUG_ON(blk_update_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)));
I don't think hiding something that actually does do the work in a
BUG_ON ever is a good style.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists