Re: [PATCHv4 10/17] pps: use BUG_ON for kernel API safety checks

[Alexander Gordeev]

Ð Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:01:41 -0800
Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> ÐÐÑÐÑ:

> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 17:13 +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:01:03PM +0300, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > This way less overhead is involved when running production kernel.
> > > If you want to debug a pps client module please define DEBUG to enable
> > > the checks.
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <lasaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pps/kapi.c b/drivers/pps/kapi.c
> > > @@ -179,10 +168,8 @@ void pps_event(struct pps_device *pps, struct pps_event_time *ts, int event,
> > >  	int captured = 0;
> > >  	struct pps_ktime ts_real;
> > >  
> > > -	if ((event & (PPS_CAPTUREASSERT | PPS_CAPTURECLEAR)) == 0) {
> > > -		dev_err(pps->dev, "unknown event (%x)\n", event);
> > > -		return;
> > > -	}
> > > +	/* check event type */
> > > +	BUG_ON((event & (PPS_CAPTUREASSERT | PPS_CAPTURECLEAR)) == 0);
> > 
> > Ack.
> > 
> > This is a correct usage of BUG_ON. :)
> 
> I don't think that's true.
> 
> /*
>  * Don't use BUG() or BUG_ON() unless there's really no way out; one
>  * example might be detecting data structure corruption in the middle
>  * of an operation that can't be backed out of.  If the (sub)system
>  * can somehow continue operating, perhaps with reduced functionality,
>  * it's probably not BUG-worthy.
>  *
>  * If you're tempted to BUG(), think again:  is completely giving up
>  * really the *only* solution?  There are usually better options, where
>  * users don't need to reboot ASAP and can mostly shut down cleanly.
>  */

Hmm, didn't check that before. What is more appropriate in this
situation?

-- 
  Alexander

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature