Re: [2.6 patch][1/3] ipc/ BUG -> BUG_ON conversions

[Jens Axboe]

On Sat, Aug 28 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >  > Anything you put in BUG_ON() must *NOT* have side effects.
> >  >...
> > 
> >  I'd have said exactly the same some time ago, but I was convinced by 
> >  Arjan that if done correctly, a BUG_ON() with side effects is possible  
> >  with no extra cost even if you want to make BUG configurably do nothing.
> 
> Nevertheless, I think I'd prefer that we not move code which has
> side-effects into BUG_ONs.  For some reason it seems neater that way.
> 
> Plus one would like to be able to do
> 
> 	BUG_ON(strlen(str) > 22);
> 
> and have strlen() not be evaluated if BUG_ON is disabled.
> 
> A minor distinction, but one which it would be nice to preserve.

Precisely, I fully agree (even though BUG_ON() will never be defined
away, if you should not do the check kill it completely).

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/