On 11/16/06, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/15/06, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > | Anyway, there are always tradeoffs, compiler gets more info, but we > | end up using more memory per socket instance, I guess we can stay like > | we are now, no? :-) > That is why I sent it as RFC in the first place: it is not broken but would > be good to have. > > I will think about a solution without changing the socket fields, > would BUG be ok instead of the more verbose output? But then, it is not so > terribly important, it just makes the code harder to understand. Well, I'd rather prefer a WARN_ON type, probably rate limiting the printks, so that we can receive reports that something is fishy but don't panic the machine.
Whatever you do do not put BUG back in place of a dump_stack that I've put in the code!! The reason for this is that if you do a BUG when you have the bottom half locked your machine comes to a screaming halt. What's worse is it does not appear in the logs but only in the console as it doesn't sync the filesystems but just stops the machine dead. I learnt this the hard way! Ian -- Ian McDonald Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com WAND Network Research Group Department of Computer Science University of Waikato New Zealand - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
