On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Will BUG() remain enabled in 2.4? I always assumed that BUG() is the
> replacement for "*(int*)0=0", and that it remains enabled in 2.4.
i believe so. We do want to manage BUG()s though, and cut down their
number once any of them becomes inactive. But a fair percentage of them
proved to be extremely useful through 2.3. This means that any assert
should live the life of a 'BUG()' line: get added with new code, and get
removed after some time.
> KASSERT() could be disabled in 2.4, and thus we could add such tests even to
> time critical functions [I hope WAITQUEUE_DEBUG, SPINLOCK_DEBUG, the BUG()
> in unlock_kernel() get disabled/removed before 2.4]
i dont think we want to make a difference between the two. We want to
remove all BUGs over time as well (new BUG()s will be added of course).
Lets not complicate things unnecesserily.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:24 EST