[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] hugetlb: remove dummy definitions of HPAGE_MASK and HPAGE_SI

To: David Daney <>
Subject: Re: [patch] hugetlb: remove dummy definitions of HPAGE_MASK and HPAGE_SIZE
From: Linus Torvalds <>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:37:27 -0800
Cc: David Rientjes <>, Andrew Morton <>,,,, David Daney <>,, Robin Holt <>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=LLvRq5LFS8S3WAns+aGJkw4ZapStJMpHr8e/QznUFHU=; b=W+OLZkZTa1PvmprJwl7jvUCrvoZiDiTHZBSrOLZIw0B42E+eZBoeiDSwFL4HUsKcez dvpPWvLcfaVLwcA80Xqqkch+JYj844pXtgxgG4j7uyJEyb+yObkvbIou6DVH0ZO5LUc3 LIZGnxP6sc/lRXzcA0Xj2qtWi8CiPmYqHAB0k=
In-reply-to: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:47 PM, David Daney <> wrote:
> These symbols are on dead code paths, so they are eliminated by the
> compiler's Dead Code Elimination (DCE) optimizations, and the BUG() code
> never gets emitted to the final executable.

If you are so damn sure of that, then DON'T MAKE IT A BUG_ON! If you
are 100% syre, then you might as well leave out the BUG_ON() entirely.

Seriously. What's so hard to understand?

Either you are 100% sure, or you are not. If you are 100% sure, then
the BUG_ON() is pointless. And if you are not, then the BUG_ON() is

Notice? The BUG_ON() is never *ever* valid. You cannot have it both
ways. So stop pushing crap, already!

So what are non-crap solutions?

 - the current one: error out at compile time (early) if somebody uses
them in invalid contexts.

   This seems to be a good case, especially since apparently no actual
current code wants to use them outside of the existing #ifdef's. And
there is no reason to think that some random MIPS-only future code is
a good enough reason to re-introduce these things

 - if you really want to use them, but expect the compiler to always
compile them away as dead code, use a non-existing function linkage,
so that you at least get a static failure at link-time for incorrect
code, rather than some random BUG_ON() at run-time that may be
impossible to find.

See? There are real solutions. BUG_ON() is not one of them.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>