On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 5:26 PM Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org> wrote: > > > > 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 >
I think an assert that /dev exists is fine within device drivers that want to create device nodes on /dev. It's not their responsibility to create the /dev tree, right? >> >> Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
