Re: [PATCH] Make (LIST_DEBUG WARN not BUG)

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:22:27AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 08:12:41AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>  > So no, lists aren't "special" in any inherent way, they are just special 
>  > in these kinds of "incidentally, a lot of random data structure corruption 
>  > has traditionally shown up in lists, because there are so many of them".
> 
> It's also been _really_ useful for showing up random bit flips in bad hardware.
> 
> "hey, if that bit had been a 1, this pointer would have looked valid and we
>  wouldn't have oopsed" has led to quite a few cases where the reporter then
> found a session with memtest86 enlightening.

Affirmative, LIST_DEBUG is very useful.

Let's look again at what patch actually does: writes to corrupted memory
will be done even if it's known for sure it's corrupted.

There is

	BUG_ON(!list_empty(&father->children));

in forget_original_parent(). Should it be changed to WARN_ON? Why [not]?

--
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/