Hi Greg, On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 11:26 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 08:18:27PM +0200, Ionut Nicu wrote: > > Hi Rene, > > > > On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 18:07 -0600, Sapiens, Rene wrote: > > > Hi Ionut, > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Ionut Nicu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Convert the rmgr module of the tidspbridge driver > > > > to use struct list_head instead of struct lst_list. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ionut Nicu <[email protected]> > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/drv.c > > > > b/drivers/staging/tidspbridge/rmgr/drv.c > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > @@ -492,16 +465,17 @@ u32 drv_get_next_dev_object(u32 hdev_obj) > > > > u32 dw_next_dev_object = 0; > > > > struct drv_object *pdrv_obj; > > > > struct drv_data *drv_datap = dev_get_drvdata(bridge); > > > > + struct list_head *curr; > > > > > > > > DBC_REQUIRE(hdev_obj != 0); > > > > > > can we remove the DBC_REQUIRE and always check for !hdev_obj? > > > > > > > Sounds ok to me. > > > > As a general remark, I personally think that the DBC_* macros should be > > replaced with BUG_ON, WARN_ON, but that's a subject for other patches. > > What do you think? > > They should probably be deleted, I will not add any BUG_ON to a driver, > nor should anyone else. That's just rude behavior to crash the system, > don't you think? >
You're right. Removing them sounds like a better plan. There over 1000 DBC_* lines in this driver, so I guess it will clean it up a little bit. Just out of curiosity, in what cases is it acceptable to use BUG_ON/WARN_ON? Thanks, Ionut. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
