On Thu, Jun 23 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >>+ assert("nikita-955", pool != NULL);
> > >
> > > These assertion codes are meaningless to the rest of us so please drop
> > > them.
> >
> > As someone who spends time debugging reiser3 issues, I've grown
> > accustomed to the named assertions. They make discussing a particular
> > assertion much more natural in conversation than file:line.
>
> __FUNCTION__?
Doesn't help a lot. I've also been annoyed several times in the past
when having to lookup a BUG() for a kernel source I don't exactly have
at hand right then and there. If you have constructs ala
function()
{
if (cond_a)
BUG();
if (cond_b)
BUG();
if (cond_c)
BUG();
do_stuff...
}
then it's impossible to know which one it is without the identical
source at hand.
That said, I don't like the reiser name-number style. If you must do
something like this, mark responsibility by using a named identifier
covering the layer in question instead.
assert("trace_hash-89", is_hashed(foo) != 0);
or whatever.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
