xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: introduce CONFIG_XFS_WARN

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: introduce CONFIG_XFS_WARN
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:49:00 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1366699138-24055-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1366699138-24055-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2
On 04/23/2013 02:38 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
...
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> index cd29f61..d3e0679 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ typedef struct xfs_trans {
>       int64_t                 t_res_fdblocks_delta; /* on-disk only chg */
>       int64_t                 t_frextents_delta;/* superblock freextents chg*/
>       int64_t                 t_res_frextents_delta; /* on-disk only chg */
> -#ifdef DEBUG
> +#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
>       int64_t                 t_ag_freeblks_delta; /* debugging counter */
>       int64_t                 t_ag_flist_delta; /* debugging counter */
>       int64_t                 t_ag_btree_delta; /* debugging counter */
> 

I see some ASSERT() calls using these counters but the macros that
manage them appear to be defined against DEBUG only (further down in
xfs_trans.h). This looks like it would lead to spurious warnings..?

Brian

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