Re: [PATCH] conditionalize some boring buffer_head checks

[Jeff Garzik]

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > ===== fs/buffer.c 1.237 vs edited =====
> > --- 1.237/fs/buffer.c	Wed Apr 14 03:18:09 2004
> > +++ edited/fs/buffer.c	Wed Apr 14 03:39:15 2004
> > @@ -2688,6 +2688,7 @@
> > {
> > 	struct bio *bio;
> >
> > +#ifdef BH_DEBUG
> > 	BUG_ON(!buffer_locked(bh));
> > 	BUG_ON(!buffer_mapped(bh));
> > 	BUG_ON(!bh->b_end_io);
>
>
> The last one will be 'caught' at the other end of io completion, so I
> guess that could be killed (even though you already lost the context of
> the error, then). The first two are buffer state errors, I think those
> should be kept unconditionally.
>
>
> > @@ -2698,6 +2699,7 @@
> > 		buffer_error();
> > 	if (rw == READ && buffer_dirty(bh))
> > 		buffer_error();
> > +#endif
>
>
> I'm fine with killing the buffer_error(), maybe
>
> 	if (rw == WRITE && !buffer_uptodate(bh))
> 		buffer_error();
>
> should be kept though.


Well, all of these are buffer state (and programmer) errors...

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/