On 8/21/14, 12:44 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Ah, right, sorry - spaced out that it was shared. I'll add ASSERT_ALWAYS() to userspace then, perhaps. Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
