On Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 5:32 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > On 20/2/21 7:56 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 2:51 PM Gedare Bloom <ged...@rtems.org > > <mailto:ged...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > > > I think the suggestion is to provide a catch-all rather than try to > add new > > faults for every possible condition. This mkdir is a pretty esoteric > fault > > that is unlikely to happen in properly developed code. > > > > Then why shouldn't this just be a debug _Assert and value not check > deliberately? > > Will the call ever fail in production? Could a user configure RTEMS in a > manner > that generates the failure? > > > Isn't an assert something that should not happen in a properly designed > BSP. In > > this case, it would be the sysinit magic that would be utterly broken. > > I would not step out as far as utterly broken but yes I see your point. > There > are other places where we have taken this approach. > > If the lack of making a directory in GRLIB is handled by errors in the > other > dependent calls then why not add some documentation to the BSP. >
Confirmation appreciated but it is making the directory to out a device node. The device node create will fail if there isn't a directory so this will return an error. https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/bsps/shared/grlib/pci/gr_rasta_io.c#n577 Which means an assert is ok > Chris >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
