Re: [bugfix] SMP, shm-2.3.52-A0

From: Ingo Molnar (
Date: Fri Mar 17 2000 - 20:32:55 EST

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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:24 EST