On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 06:00:42PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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? ;) > I could live with that, better a relative big macro's name than a shorter abbreviated one that you should buy a crystal ball to really understand what it means :) > -Eric > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
