On 2/9/15 3:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 04:43:59PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:17:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: ... >> Sure, but ASSERT_CORRUPT_RET() is the same length as the example above. >> ASSERT_CORRUPT_GOTO() is only a few chars longer than the associated >> example. We could still use WANT over ASSERT I suppose to shorten it up >> further. Either of those are at least still self-explanatory in my >> opinion. > > Thinking on it a bit further, the XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED macros have an > internal ASSERT in them, so they are effectively an ASSERT > statement. I could live with those names, especially as ASSERT is > something that can be compiled into production kernels via > CONFIG_XFS_WARN=y to turn them into error messages... Sooooo you all want "ASSERT_CORRUPTED_RET / ASSERT_CORRUPTED_GOTO" ? In a light mauve? ;) -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
