Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261858AbTE2CLv (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2003 22:11:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261861AbTE2CLv (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2003 22:11:51 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:17932 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261858AbTE2CLu (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2003 22:11:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 19:23:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Paul Mackerras cc: davem@redhat.com, , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: Proposed patch to kernel.h In-Reply-To: <16085.27084.581954.762132@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 787 Lines: 19 On Thu, 29 May 2003, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > On second thoughts, it would be cleaner to move BUG_ON() into each > architecture's bug.h alongside BUG() and PAGE_BUG(), rather than using > an ifdef in kernel.h as my previous patch did. Wouldn't it make sense to do the same thing to "WARN_ON()" then? It sounds entirely appropriate to use the same kind of conditional trap instructions for that too.. (The only difference being a bit somewhere that says that the "WARN_ON()" kind of trap handler should resume after the fault). Linus - 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/