On Thursday 04 October 2007 14:15, John W. Linville wrote:
quoted text
> Falling back on bloat as an argument against a BUG_ON in a
> configuration path seems a bit weak. :-)
>
Seems strong to me. Bloat slows me down and distracts me from what code rea=
lly=20
needs to do. Bloat is an indication that one does not understand what the=20
code really needs to do.

quoted text
> Programming with assertions (and BUG_ON is a form of that) is
> generally a good practice.  Almost any book or other source on
> good programming practices will agree.  Yes, it can be overdone.
> But I don't really think that is the case here, since the check is
> relatively inexpensive and the consequence should it ever *somehow*
> happen could be a something wierd (crash, corruption, etc) w/o any
> other indication of what occured.
>
A line has to be drawn somewhere. There's about a billion places where we c=
an=20
add checks like this because if an assumption should ever break, the code=20
will break into pieces. However, we don't, and there's no reason to do so=20
here other than to needlessly add code just because it makes you feel safer.

=2DMichael Wu