On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ray Lee wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, perhaps I poured myself a cup of stupid this morning, but
> > isn't the above patch effectively introducing a BUG where none could
> > be reached before? In other words, for the patch to have zero
> > behavioral change, wouldn't it have to remove the BUG() altogether?
>
> True, but obviously not intended. I think the intention was to expose this bug.
Arguing intentions is very dangerous. I've written code like that
where the intention is to make it simple to turn a printk into a full
bug and back and forth during development. At the end of the day, the
fact remains that you're changing behavior.
Let me turn this around. Do you have an alpha and have you tried out
your patch? If not, then I'd suggest turning it into a WARN_ON(1)
instead, as in this specific case you're risking turning what was a
working system into one that doesn't.
-
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]
