> > Thing is, I'm not totally convinced it is wrong to the code while it may > > or may not be wrong... > > Doesn't should be bss pinned int he bss list if you are associating to > it. If it's not there you don't have access to it's info It looks very > wrong to me. Well, yes, it is a bit odd. > > 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. > > I'm not sure if this patch is complete without this warning. What is > in the else statement is a hack and it should be obvious. Considering that the message won't help us at all, why bother? We know it's triggering, we know this might be a problem, and we know we can only solve it by auditing the code. So why add a message that will get us countless emails/complaints from people we cannot do anything about anyway without doing the audit? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
