On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:21:35 -0700
"Paul Menage" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/15/07, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > + BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&dentry->d_count));
> > > repeat:
> > > if (atomic_read(&dentry->d_count) == 1)
> > > might_sleep();
> >
> > eek, much too aggressive.
>
> How about the equivalent BUG_ON() in dget()? I figure that they ought
> to both be of the same strictness.
The one in dget() is known not to trigger - it's been there for a long time.
My problem with new BUG_ON's is that they get added thinking "no way will
this trigger" and lo, they do trigger and lots of people get their testing
disrupted for a whole release.
Long-standing checks like the one in dget() should perhaps be removed now
that we know they don't trigger - move them under some CONFIG_DEBUG_foo
option.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
