On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 06:00:42PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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...
> Sooooo you all want "ASSERT_CORRUPTED_RET / ASSERT_CORRUPTED_GOTO" ?
> In a light mauve? ;)
I could live with that, better a relative big macro's name than a shorter
abbreviated one that you should buy a crystal ball to really understand what it
> > Cheers,
> > Dave.
> xfs mailing list