On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 01:52:25PM -0500, tytso@xxxxxxx wrote: > 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> Maybe convert it to a warning? -- 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
