[alsa-devel] [PATCH 21/31] ASoC: dapm: Use WARN_ON() instead of BUG_ON()

[Mark Brown]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:33:14PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:

> > Please fix the comment about BUG_ON() being useless; it does exactly
> > what it's supposed to do.

> Well,  I can correct the word "useless" with "stupid" in the comment,
> as BUG_ON() is the most stupid idea to do at such a point.  soc-dapm.c
> is the common code that can be executed from any others. How you can
> know that the machine *must* be killed suddenly at this point?  If you
> didn't attach the console beforehand, you can't get even any debug
> logs.

The point is that it's not appropriate in this situation but not
useless; if it were useless you should be sending a patch to remove it
from the kernel entirely.  

> Using BUG() and BUG_ON() in buggy points without any really serious
> damage (like heavy memory corruption or data corruption) has to be
> avoided.  Linus stated this in the past, too.  (I have no pointer
> now, unfortunately.)

The ones in DAPM are mostly about memory corruption; if this stuff is
getting confused then there's a good chance that the data structures
that it's looking at aren't what they're supposed to be.

> > >  	list_for_each_entry(w, pending, power_list) {
> > > +		if (WARN_ON(reg != w->reg))
> > > +			continue;
> > >  		dapm_seq_check_event(card, w, SND_SOC_DAPM_POST_PMU);
> > >  		dapm_seq_check_event(card, w, SND_SOC_DAPM_POST_PMD);
> > >  	}

> > We're not using reg here...

> Because you must not issue *_POST_* events without *_PRE_* events.
> *_PRE_* are skipped for these entries in the previous WARN_ON()
> checks.

No, that's not the case at all - it's very rare for devices to have both
events in the first place.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20131106/516bc94a/attachment.sig>