[PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: use BUG_ON where possible

[Sasha Levin]

On 11/12/2012 10:12 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> 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/)
>>
>> // <smpl>
>> @@
>> expression e;
>> @@
>> - if (e) BUG();
>> + BUG_ON(e);
>> // </smpl>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin at oracle.com>
>> ---
>>  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..

You can't modify the side-effects of a macro based on kernel configuration. If
we're evaluating the expression when BUG_ON() is enabled, you must also evaluate
the expression when BUG_ON() is not enabled (HAVE_ARCH_BUG_ON is not set).

The only reason I'd not include function calls in a BUG_ON() call is due to
readability considerations. In this case it looked okay to me, but if someone
thinks that getting the function call into the BUG_ON() complicated things I'm
fine with skipping that.


Thanks,
Sasha