Re: Re: [PATCH v6 1/8] x86: allow to handle errors in text_pokefunction family

From: Masami Hiramatsu
Date: Tue Jan 21 2014 - 19:52:23 EST

(2014/01/21 23:02), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 14:00:37 +0100
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> There are some situations where it is hard to recover from an error. Masami
>>>> Hiramatsu <> suggested to create
>>>> text_poke*_or_die() variants for this purpose.
>>> I don't like the "_or_die()". Although I don't care much about it, I'm
>>> thinking the x86 maintainers might not like it either.
>>> What about just doing the test in the places that would call "or_die"?
>>> ret = text_poke*();
>>> BUG_ON(ret);
>> Exactly this solution has been used in v5 of this patch set, see
>> Masami suggested to use the "or_die()" because BUG_ON() was used on most
>> locations, see
> If BUG_ON() is used in most locations, then we can make text_poke()
> default to bug, and the just have a text_poke_safe() function that does
> not bug. Or some similar name.

Unfortunately, since still there is BUG_ON() in text_poke() when
we failed to modify text, I think text_poke_safe() is not a good
name too.

> The "_die" has a bad taste in several developers mouth ;-)

What about using text_poke() for BUG_ON and __text_poke()
for returning an error ? This may not change caller sites.

Thank you,

IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at