[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X/dGhD/R8r5yeElq@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:36:04 -0500
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmap: replace if (cond) BUG() with BUG_ON()
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 06:28:29PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/6/21 9:18 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2021, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd be surprised if the kernel can boot with BUG_ON() defined as "do
> >> {}while(0)" so I guess it doesn't make any difference.
> >
> > I had been afraid of that too, when CONFIG_BUG is not set:
> > but I think it's actually "if (cond) do {} while (0)".
>
> It's a maze of configs and arch-specific vs generic headers, but I do see this
> in include/asm-generic/bug.h:
>
> #else /* !CONFIG_BUG */
> #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG
> #define BUG() do {} while (1)
> #endif
>
> So seems to me there *are* configurations possible where side-effects are indeed
> thrown away, right?
But this not BUG_ON, and that is an infinite loop while(1), not an
optimization away as in while (0) that I was suggesting to just throw
away cond and make it a noop. BUG() is actually the thing to use to
move functional stuff out of BUG_ON so it's not going to be causing
issues if it just loops.
This overall feels mostly an aesthetically issue.
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists