On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:18:00PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 03:08:22PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > > > > From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > To improve debugging abilities, especially invalid option > > > > asserts. > > > > > > Looking at the code I'd much rather have unconditional WARN_ON_ONCE > > > statements in most places. Including returning an error when we see > > > something invalid in most cases. > > > > Yeah, I was thinking something like this, which has the advantage that > > the report format is familiar to XFS developers and will get picked up > > by the automated error collection stuff I put in xfstests to complain > > about any XFS assertion failures: > > > > iomap: Introduce CONFIG_FS_IOMAP_DEBUG > > > > To improve debugging abilities, especially invalid option > > asserts. > > I'd actually just rather have more unconditional WARN_ON_ONCE calls, > including actually recovering from the situation by return an actual > error code. That is more > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(some_impossible_condition)) > return -EIO; Oh, right, WARNings actually do spit out the file and line number. Let's do that. :) --D
