On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 07:50:48AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Otherwise seems Ok, but kind of ugly. What about something like the > > following diff (applied on top of this patch)? Still hacky, but it > > avoids the multiple lock cycles for each check failure and preserves the > > actual assert strings. (Untested and probably could use comment > > updates..). > > This looks a little better. But maybe we should just replace the > ASSERT statements with WARN_ON_ONCE calls to make them non-fatal > but otherwise leave things as-is? Yup, it's cleaner than my change, but I still asserts here as it's debug-only code and asserts stop tracing instantly. That makes it much easier to debug problems this code detects because you don't need to do any work to find where in the tracing output the error was first detected.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
