Pete Heist <p...@heistp.net> writes: >> On Jan 5, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote: >> >> Pete Heist <p...@heistp.net> writes: >> >>>> On Jan 5, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, it's the same WARN_ON(), and if that patch had been applied, >>>> debugging our issue would have been a lot harder, I think. >>> >>> Yikes, this is what I mean. I’d rather suffer the warning than be >>> troubleshooting flaky behavior. That patch is applied in the latest >>> kernel, so hopefully it’s the right thing. >> >> Well, if it causes false positives, getting rid of it is probably worth >> it just to avoid spurious bug reports :) > > If it helps finds bugs, I’d rather know about it. > > But, a warning once in a while might have been better than a repeated > one that sometimes makes a hard reboot necessary, causing need for a > manual, offline fsck in order to boot again. Just sayin’… ;)
Yes, that is why WARN_ON tends to be frowned upon ;) -Toke _______________________________________________ Cake mailing list Cake@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
