On 8/27/13 4:56 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:28:24PM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: >> On 8/26/13 4:56 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> One of the complaints we get a lot is how many BUG_ON()'s we have. So to >>> help >>> with this I'm introducing a kconfig option to enable/disable a new ASSERT() >>> mechanism much like what XFS does. This will allow us developers to still >>> get >>> our nice panics but allow users/distros to compile them out. With this we >>> can >>> go through and convert any BUG_ON()'s that we have to catch actual >>> programming >>> mistakes to the new ASSERT() and then fix everybody else to return errors. >>> This >>> will also allow developers to leave sanity checks in their new code to make >>> sure >>> we don't trip over problems while testing stuff and vetting new features. >>> Thanks, >> >> I don't think the complaint is so much about the number of BUG_ONs, but >> that there's no distinction between something that is supposed to be >> impossible and something that is improbable. The BUG_ONs to keep code >> correctness are good and are littered all over the kernel with positive >> results. The BUG_ONs that are there in place of real error handling >> served their purpose and need to be replaced. >> >> So, I don't know if it's a net win to compile the "good" BUG_ONs out of >> the code. Especially if a user runs into something strange yet familiar >> and the first response is "oh, huh, can you rebuild with asserts enabled?" >> > > Either I provide an option for it or distros do it themselves, this cuts out > the > middle man. I'd really rather they just be on all the time since they aren't > things we should hit anyway, but at least this way people have a choice.
Ok. With my distro hat on, I can tell you I'll be leaving them on. :) -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
