Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:32:55 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [bugfix] SMP, shm-2.3.52-A0 |
| |
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Will BUG() remain enabled in 2.4? I always assumed that BUG() is the > replacement for "*(int*)0=0", and that it remains enabled in 2.4.
i believe so. We do want to manage BUG()s though, and cut down their number once any of them becomes inactive. But a fair percentage of them proved to be extremely useful through 2.3. This means that any assert should live the life of a 'BUG()' line: get added with new code, and get removed after some time.
> KASSERT() could be disabled in 2.4, and thus we could add such tests even to > time critical functions [I hope WAITQUEUE_DEBUG, SPINLOCK_DEBUG, the BUG() > in unlock_kernel() get disabled/removed before 2.4]
i dont think we want to make a difference between the two. We want to remove all BUGs over time as well (new BUG()s will be added of course). Lets not complicate things unnecesserily.
Ingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |