lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.231 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site