Bert Huijben wrote on Thu, May 19, 2011 at 17:41:13 +0200: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danie...@elego.de] > > Sent: donderdag 19 mei 2011 17:36 > > To: dev@subversion.apache.org > > Cc: Daniel Shahaf > > Subject: Re: Locking and errors (and deserialization) in inprocess-cache > > > > Actually, the following might suffice for now: > > > > Index: subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-inprocess.c > > ========================================================== > > ========= > > --- subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-inprocess.c (revision 1124903) > > +++ subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-inprocess.c (working copy) > > @@ -148,19 +148,19 @@ insert_page(inprocess_cache_t *cache, > > > > /* If PAGE is in the circularly linked list (eg, its NEXT isn't NULL), > > * move it to the front of the list. */ > > -static svn_error_t * > > +static void > > move_page_to_front(inprocess_cache_t *cache, > > struct cache_page *page) > > { > > - SVN_ERR_ASSERT(page != cache->sentinel); > > + SVN_ERR_ASSERT_NO_RETURN(page != cache->sentinel); > > But this would crash the application/server if it fails, while the other > would return an error if a malfunction handler is installed. > > So, "no". This is not a valid alternative. > > The original assert() before your original patch is a valid alternative as > that won't crash the application. >
If we have assert() then a non-debug server would be accessing a cache whose contents are undefined, which may result in corrupt repositories (since the cache is used for FS contents). I'd rather crash. > Bert >
