| To: | Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: fix error handling in xfs_log_mount |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:39:23 -0500 |
| Cc: | Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <49920CB5.1020103@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20090210194422.767988000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090210194515.509547000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <A482AB92-6E29-43EA-A671-43D86E041335@xxxxxxx> <20090210195756.GA7569@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1E52072E-CA98-430B-9B2F-FDD0FDD1A7A4@xxxxxxx> <49920CB5.1020103@xxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:24:37AM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > I'd prefer both fixes go in so we have maximum defence against > this problem happening again but I'm really not fussed. I disagree. All these weird error checks for things that can't happen just make the code big, bloated and unreadable. And they make people sloppy by not enforcing the same unwind order thus leading to more bugs (as seen by the historic xfs mount path before we started unwinding it) |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS kernel BUG at fs/buffer.c:470! with 2.6.28.4, Alessandro Bono |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!, raksac |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: fix error handling in xfs_log_mount, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 2/2] xfs: reject swapext ioctl on swapfiles, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |