From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753648Ab2KLPMh (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:12:37 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:51599 "EHLO mail-lb0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753620Ab2KLPMf (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:12:35 -0500 Message-ID: <50A111DD.6080504@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:12:29 +0100 From: Maarten Lankhorst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sasha Levin CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim , Russell King , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: use BUG_ON where possible References: <1352406191-14303-1-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> <1352406191-14303-5-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <1352406191-14303-5-git-send-email-sasha.levin@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Op 08-11-12 21:23, Sasha Levin schreef: > Just use BUG_ON() instead of constructions such as: > > if (...) > BUG() > > A simplified version of the semantic patch that makes this transformation > is as follows: (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/) > > // > @@ > expression e; > @@ > - if (e) BUG(); > + BUG_ON(e); > // > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > index 4e577f6..6a55a5a 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c > @@ -465,10 +465,8 @@ static void __init combiner_cascade_irq(unsigned int combiner_nr, unsigned int i > else > max_nr = EXYNOS4_MAX_COMBINER_NR; > > - if (combiner_nr >= max_nr) > - BUG(); > - if (irq_set_handler_data(irq, &combiner_data[combiner_nr]) != 0) > - BUG(); > + BUG_ON(combiner_nr >= max_nr); > + BUG_ON(irq_set_handler_data(irq, &combiner_data[combiner_nr]) != 0); Is it really a good idea to put functions that perform work in a BUG_ON? I don't know, but for some reason it just feels wrong. I'd expect code to compile fine if BUG_ON was a noop, so doing verification calls only, not actual work.. ~Maarten