On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:32:02PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > The original reason for the expletive below has been lost > in the mists of time, but at any rate, ASSERT() goes away in > libxfs, and this leads static analysis checkers to believe that > XFS_BTNUM_MAX is possible, and that we might overflow an array > later when using it as an index. > > We can shut this up and mark it as truly impossible with abort(). This won't work in kernel space, and we'd like to keep this file in sync. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
