On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:07:29 -0700 > Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 09/01/2010 05:38 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: >> >> >> No warning, it always returns something since the default case catches >> >> all others. If I did put the return at the end, then the compiler wouldn't >> >> catch a case where I forgot to return from one of the case statements, >> >> but it's not overly complex code, so I don't care so much either way. >> >> Plz let me know if you still want it at the end. >> >> >> >> I also think the WARN_ON is valid, because it can only be a coding bug >> >> that hits that state, and I'd like it to be as loud as possible while >> >> still allowing the user to continue. There are automated tools that >> >> catch WARN_ON output and post to kernel bug trackers, for instance. >> >> >> >> If you still want a cERROR, I can do that..but I prefer to not waste >> >> the space. >> >> >> > >> > It's definitely a coding bug if that fires, but a WARN_ON will mean >> > nothing to users. It looks scary and is virtually indistinguishable >> > from an oops. We'll get a stack trace, but it's unlikely to tell us >> > much. >> > >> > At that point, you might as well make it a BUG(). At least that way, >> > we might get a core dump if it fires. >> >> I'd like to wrap this up. Please let me know exactly what you want there >> and I'll make it so. >> > > Fair enough. We're splitting hairs at this point. Let's just take this > as-is. For v5 of the patch: > > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxx> I do like this patch as well - although not for rc4 but see no problem with it in the next merge window - unless there is some other feedback on IPv6 related syntax that I missed. -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
