Re: [PATCH 6/10] bug.h: Replace __linktime_error with__compiletime_error

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 09:04:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 17:23 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 06:20:07PM -0500, Daniel Santos wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/bug.h |    2 +-
> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/bug.h b/include/linux/bug.h
> > > index aaac4bb..298a916 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/bug.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/bug.h
> > > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
> > >  #define BUILD_BUG()						\
> > >  	do {							\
> > >  		extern void __build_bug_failed(void)		\
> > > -			__linktime_error("BUILD_BUG failed");	\
> > > +			__compiletime_error("BUILD_BUG failed");\
> > >  		__build_bug_failed();				\
> > >  	} while (0)
> > 
> > This change should either occur as part of patch 5 or before patch 5,
> > not after.
> 
> I noticed the same thing and was about to comment on it.
> 
> Please do not break bisectablity. All your patches should compile and
> run at every step.

And while we're at it, every patch upstream should have a commit message
explaining why this is done. No matter how trivial it is, because after
a sufficient amount of time passes, everyone tends to forget why this
has been done.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.
--
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/