On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:34:14PM -0500, Amerigo Wang wrote: > This BUG() is suspicious, it makes its following statements > unreachable, only when CONFIG_BUG=y > and it seems to be useless, since the caller > of this function already handles the failure properly. because this function can return NULL in other codepath > Remove it. I don't know why this BUG() is there (and maybe it's not really needed), but your rationale is wrong. > Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> > Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > --- > diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c > index 6fa5302..ac111d7 100644 > --- a/fs/buffer.c > +++ b/fs/buffer.c > @@ -1041,7 +1041,6 @@ grow_dev_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, > return page; > > failed: > - BUG(); > unlock_page(page); > page_cache_release(page); > return NULL; > -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
