Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:55:13 +0200
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@imgtec.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Andrei Vagin <avagin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@virtuozzo.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] signal/mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER with
 SIGFPE
Message-ID: <20170807195513.GD3509@linux-mips.org>
References: <87o9shg7t7.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
 <20170718140651.15973-4-ebiederm@xmission.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1708071706290.17596@tp.orcam.me.uk>
 <CA+55aFx3ss90b4x2bo4si80kQUjMVL1zUX3Oxvu04OE14nUtFw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFx3ss90b4x2bo4si80kQUjMVL1zUX3Oxvu04OE14nUtFw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 774
Lines: 21

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 10:41:39AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@imgtec.com> wrote:
> >
> >  So what would be the right value of `si_code' to use here for such an
> > unexpected exception condition?  I think `BUG()' would be too big a
> > hammer here.  Or wouldn't it?
> 
> Hell no. NEVER EVER BUG().
> 
> The only case to use BUG() is if there is some core data structure
> (say, kernel stack) that is so corrupted that you know you cannot
> continue. That's the *only* valid use.
> 
> If this is a "this condition cannot happen" issue, then just remove
> the damn conditional. It's pointless. Adding a BUG() to show "this
> cannot happen" is not acceptable.

I queued a patch to remove the code for 4.14.

  Ralf