Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756615Ab3EVQUV (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2013 12:20:21 -0400 Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:57163 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756387Ab3EVQUT (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2013 12:20:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:19:35 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Chen Gang , "mingo@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/sched/core.c: need return NULL when BUG() is defined as empty. Message-ID: <20130522161935.GR18810@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <5199D565.4070307@asianux.com> <20130522091156.GC18810@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130522133317.GC18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130522133317.GC18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1564 Lines: 36 On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:33:17PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:11:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:48:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > > > > > > When neither CONFIG_BUG nor HAVE_ARCH_BUG is defined, need let function > > > return failure value ('NULL') instead of random value. > > > > What will such a kernel do? Happily continue running whenever we hit a > > BUG? that seems like a particularly bad idea. Should we not have a stub > > BUG() function like: > > > > void BUG(void) __attribute__((noreturn)) > > { > > local_irq_disable(); > > while (1) ; > > } > > Eww. So you've a platform where you have things like panic_on_oops > enabled, and you hit this bug... do we really want to just stop? > Wouldn't replacing BUG() with panic("BUG"); be better ? > > But, this begs the question - what is the point of being able to turn > off BUG() ? As BUG() on any sensible architecture is implemented by > placing the minimum of code at the callsite (eg, one instruction if > not using verbose) anything like the above is likely to be bigger. > > So, I'd actually argue that rather than trying to "fix" this, get rid > of CONFIG_BUG and make it always enabled everywhere - just like what > has recently been done with hotplug. Works for me. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/