On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:21:35 -0700
"Paul Menage" <menage@google.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On 9/15/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/