> Because in general we don't use asserts in the kernel. I'm sure I've used > 10,000s of asserts in user space over the decades. Zero in the kernel. > > Specifically, in user space when writing code we can put asserts throughout > the code that will cause an immediate code explosion if unexpected things > happen. In the kernel, the better choice is printing an error message then > have the code do it's best to handle it. > > That still begs the question of why it happened in the first place. As long > as the event itself us unexpected (ie. not routine) then the error message > should remain. Re-read the sample commit message I wrote. The first thing I > said is the "condition is well understood". Never remove an error message > unless you can explain with clarity why the "error" is happening. Obviously > in that case you should be replacing the error message with a comment that > explains the condition. > > Greg > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Thanks Greg, I will look into in more carefully later. In addition thanks to all the others for the patience and help. I understand that this is not normal in the kernel community and would like to really thank everyone for the patience and support. I want to help out and as I am finding out the coding is not the issue it's my issues with the community which I hope we can fix in order for me to help the kernel community. In addition I do find the kernel interesting and really like working with it, just having issues with understanding how to write patches. Nick
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
