Re: Behavior of BUG() [Was: Re: [PATCH 2/5] of/fdt: add kernelcommand line option for dtb_compat string]

[Arnaud Lacombe]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 22:45 -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> [CC: list reduced as starting a new thread, most on the context
>> removed as this concern a different issue.]
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM,  <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> [...]
>> > The kernel needs to complain *loudly* if this occurs because it
>> > represents a bug.  I'm tempted to say use BUG, but that would halt the
>> > kernel and prevent any possibility of kernel log output.
>> > [...]
>> does it ? if CONFIG_BUG is not enabled and the arch has no define for
>> it, the default does _nothing_:
>
> That's because CONFIG_BUG=N is intended for machines where logging is
> irrelevant/impossible.
>
Yes, but it is still a no-op, where the original programmer made it
clear he did not want the kernel to go further.

> You are encouraged to ignore all options under
> CONFIG_EMBEDDED when trying to have a sensible discussion.
>
Unless it creates a situation where it does the opposite of what the
intended behavior, I would guess.

 - Arnaud
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/