On Thursday 11 September 2003 17:48, John Levon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 03:06:24PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > > > I will gladly take patches to remove the other calls to BUG_ON() in > > > this driver (hint...) > > > > What is the right thing to do when an assertion fails? > > i.e. some condition that should never occur occurs. > > In such cases it is not always reasonable to muddle on... > > Regarding the panics, I think the check should just be removed entirely. > The kernel cannot successfully guard against memory corruption or > whatever in any meaningful manner: imagine if we had these checks all > over the kernel, it would be unreadable.
Hi John, the panics are there to catch my programming mistakes (such as adding something to the wrong list). It is debugging code and can be turned off during normal use (see the patch I just sent to Greg). Ciao, Duncan. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
