Re: [PATCH] return hidden bug

[Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>]

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.

No, I haven't and, I will change it, but it's included with my other
changes. see the reply that I'll write shortly for.
[PATCH retry] return hidden bug and unlock bugs.

Roel


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/