> >> I suggest to insert at least some WARN_ON(1) for the else case. > > > > Disagree, not until somebody audits the code. We already know it can > > happen and a WARN() won't help us track it down because it provides no > > additional information (stack trace is useless) > > What about printk(KERN_WARN ), The else statement actually means that > something wrong happened. Thing is, I'm not totally convinced it is wrong to the code while it may or may not be wrong... I think this patch should go in first as it actually fixes the oops, and then we can discuss the merits of adding a warning there separately. Maybe after we look a bit at the code and try to figure out whether it can still happen after that patch from Abhijeet. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
