[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: pass mp to XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_*

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: pass mp to XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_*
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:00:42 -0600
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150209215827.GW12722@dastard>
References: <54D53E8C.8070207@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150208213502.GA4251@dastard> <20150209130926.GA18336@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150209211744.GT12722@dastard> <20150209214359.GN18336@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150209215827.GW12722@dastard>
On 2/9/15 3:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 04:43:59PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:17:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:


>> Sure, but ASSERT_CORRUPT_RET() is the same length as the example above.
>> ASSERT_CORRUPT_GOTO() is only a few chars longer than the associated
>> example. We could still use WANT over ASSERT I suppose to shorten it up
>> further. Either of those are at least still self-explanatory in my
>> opinion.
> Thinking on it a bit further, the XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED macros have an
> internal ASSERT in them, so they are effectively an ASSERT
> statement. I could live with those names, especially as ASSERT is
> something that can be compiled into production kernels via
> CONFIG_XFS_WARN=y to turn them into error messages...


In a light mauve? ;)


> Cheers,
> Dave.

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