[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] [16/23] XFS: Fix gcc 4.6 set but not read and unused stateme

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [16/23] XFS: Fix gcc 4.6 set but not read and unused statement warnings
From: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:46:41 +0200
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100615074028.GA15322@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100610110.764742110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100610111052.3DDC5B1A2B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100614042700.GC6590@dastard> <20100614074309.GA17092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100614133755.GE6590@dastard> <20100614143720.GI17092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100614222458.GF6590@dastard> <20100615070244.GD6727@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100615074028.GA15322@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 03:40:28AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:02:45AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I suspect you miss quite a lot of valuable information from
> > your user base by not supporting kerneloops.org. On the other
> > hand it would likely also save you from spending time on 
> > flakes.
> > 
> > That said you don't need BUG_ON to support it (WARN etc. work
> > too), it's just the easiest way.
> Note that a XFS filesystem shutdown already gives a stack trace.
> But picking up every filesystem shutdown on kerneloops.org seems
> to be quite a bit too much.  It's usually due to IO errors from
> the underlying device.

Yes, but known race check asserts should be probably there, right?
Maybe you need a special kind of ASSERT (or shutdown) for those? 


ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>