On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 08:19:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 26 February 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: > > This doesn't seem any different than compiling out assert() at runtime > > in a userspace program, given how the kernel uses BUG() and BUG_ON(). > > I'd argue that adding unreachable() doesn't seem like it makes the > > current implementation of BUG() any worse; either way if you reach it > > you have a problem. > > I think it's better to get a warning about undefined behavior than > to suppress that warning.
Then at this point I'm going to suggest that you go ahead and submit the patch you want on top of the first four patches of this series. Please keep in mind the value and code size savings of !CONFIG_BUG, versus CONFIG_BUG=y and !CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE; those mean two different things. Meanwhile: Andrew, could you go ahead and apply the first four patches? - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
