Re: [PATCH] net: ipv4: Use BUG_ON directly instead of a if condition followed by BUG

[Sergei Shtylyov]

On 9/11/2018 12:19 PM, zhong jiang wrote:

> > > > > The if condition can be removed if we use BUG_ON directly.
> > > > > The issule is detected with the help of Coccinelle.
> > > >
> > > >     Issue?
> > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >     net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 8 ++++----
> > > > >     1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > > > index 62508a2..893bde3 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> > > > > @@ -4934,8 +4934,8 @@ void tcp_rbtree_insert(struct rb_root *root, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > >                 BUG_ON(offset < 0);
> > > > >                 if (size > 0) {
> > > > >                     size = min(copy, size);
> > > > > -                if (skb_copy_bits(skb, offset, skb_put(nskb, size), size))
> > > > > -                    BUG();
> > > > > +                BUG(skb_copy_bits(skb, offset,
> > > >
> > > >      You said BUG_ON()?
> > >    Yep. Do you think that it is worthing to do
> >
> >     I think BUG() doesn't take parameters, BUG_ON() does. Have you tried to build the kernel with your patch at all?
>   I know that the patch should be BUG_ON instead of BUG. This is my mistake.  I just want to know that it is worthing to do so.

   Yes, probably.

>   Thanks,
>   zhong jiang
[...]

MBR, Sergei