Subject: Re: BUG in pcnet32.c?

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:31:22 +0200 (MEST)

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Brian Murphy wrote:
> Anyway the attached patch fixes my problems, is anyone interested in
> reviewing it?

I guess [email-masked] and [email-masked] are.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email-masked]

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 19:31:54 +0200

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:48:16PM +0200, Brian Murphy wrote:

> Not sure what you mean. I get the panic "Break instruction in kernel 
> code" from do_bp
> in traps.c. This seems like a strange "assertion" to me...

The more information BUG or BUG_ON provide the bigger the kernel gets.
Using a simple break instruction was simply the smallest thing.  The
previous, just slightly more verbose BUG() implementation did result
in ~ 87k of bloat ...

  Ralf

---

From: Brian Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:27:56 +0200

>previous, just slightly more verbose BUG() implementation did result
Perhaps you could mention this usage of break explicitly in the message 
in do_bp.

/Brian

---

From: Ralf Baechle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:39:00 +0200

> Perhaps you could mention this usage of break explicitly in the message 

That's easy, BUG() and BUG_ON() if the condition was met use a break
instruction.

  Ralf