list debugging: use WARN() instead of BUG()

Arjan noted that the list_head debugging is BUG'ing when it detects corruption. By causing the box to panic immediately, we're possibly losing some bug reports. Changing this to a WARN() should mean we at the least start seeing reports collected at kerneloops.org Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
iegor · Jul 25, 2008 · 924d9ad · 924d9ad
1 parent d955c78
commit 924d9ad
Showing 1 changed file with 14 additions and 22 deletions.
diff --git a/lib/list_debug.c b/lib/list_debug.c
@@ -20,18 +20,14 @@ void __list_add(struct list_head *new,
 			      struct list_head *prev,
 			      struct list_head *next)
 {
-	if (unlikely(next->prev != prev)) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "list_add corruption. next->prev should be "
-			"prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n",
-			prev, next->prev, next);
-		BUG();
-	}
-	if (unlikely(prev->next != next)) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "list_add corruption. prev->next should be "
-			"next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n",
-			next, prev->next, prev);
-		BUG();
-	}
+	WARN(next->prev != prev,
+		"list_add corruption. next->prev should be "
+		"prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n",
+		prev, next->prev, next);
+	WARN(prev->next != next,
+		"list_add corruption. prev->next should be "
+		"next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n",
+		next, prev->next, prev);
 	next->prev = new;
 	new->next = next;
 	new->prev = prev;
@@ -47,16 +43,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__list_add);
  */
 void list_del(struct list_head *entry)
 {
-	if (unlikely(entry->prev->next != entry)) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "list_del corruption. prev->next should be %p, "
-				"but was %p\n", entry, entry->prev->next);
-		BUG();
-	}
-	if (unlikely(entry->next->prev != entry)) {
-		printk(KERN_ERR "list_del corruption. next->prev should be %p, "
-				"but was %p\n", entry, entry->next->prev);
-		BUG();
-	}
+	WARN(entry->prev->next != entry,
+		"list_del corruption. prev->next should be %p, "
+		"but was %p\n", entry, entry->prev->next);
+	WARN(entry->next->prev != entry,
+		"list_del corruption. next->prev should be %p, "
+		"but was %p\n", entry, entry->next->prev);
 	__list_del(entry->prev, entry->next);
 	entry->next = LIST_POISON1;
 	entry->prev = LIST_POISON2;