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/
