On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:55:11PM +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote: > 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 Which is true for all kernels except for the very rare embedded case. > > 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. Your reply is a bit snarky, IMHO. It might have been nicer and more courteous if you had bothered to take a closer look at the patch before firing off a reply. In fact, it's good to avoid BUG() if at all possible, especially if it can happen in the normally course of events --- such as running out of memory. Having code which triggers an BUG in an low memory situation is very bad form. Looks good to me. Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> - Ted -- 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
