Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755481AbXJVSQO (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:16:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753699AbXJVSMh (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:12:37 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.224]:9687 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752723AbXJVSM3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:12:29 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=C1JJrR0+saMsk5aloTvIoMfzxYEhbzQ1QUKBZ++UX2GB2Nn9nmW7R/tjGiBAqiBsCBlZ1OkICYrKjnFXLxj6ub48M461srnLKpXgiIfI0gG+fmDBLfHJzYIVwm4RrPlTuyA5oEWSo2adRzRtV5mrrCA1kjcjy7TSopVaMjg5E1Q= Message-ID: <2c0942db0710221112g7c7d99caj7feb0c2ac5de17e7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:12:23 -0700 From: "Ray Lee" To: "Roel Kluin" <12o3l@tiscali.nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH] return hidden bug Cc: "Rik van Riel" , lkml In-Reply-To: <471CE453.5050208@tiscali.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <471BF741.2020501@tiscali.nl> <20071021214209.1a7567d7@bree.surriel.com> <2c0942db0710220942he5e9199i2e327df3c5676a6a@mail.gmail.com> <471CE453.5050208@tiscali.nl> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0bef8fd3b7ac84e6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1174 Lines: 24 On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> wrote: > Ray Lee wrote: > > > I'm sorry, perhaps I poured myself a cup of stupid this morning, but > > isn't the above patch effectively introducing a BUG where none could > > be reached before? In other words, for the patch to have zero > > behavioral change, wouldn't it have to remove the BUG() altogether? > > True, but obviously not intended. I think the intention was to expose this bug. Arguing intentions is very dangerous. I've written code like that where the intention is to make it simple to turn a printk into a full bug and back and forth during development. At the end of the day, the fact remains that you're changing behavior. Let me turn this around. Do you have an alpha and have you tried out your patch? If not, then I'd suggest turning it into a WARN_ON(1) instead, as in this specific case you're risking turning what was a working system into one that doesn't. - 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/