On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:39:29PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > (p.s. It makes me little confused these subject prefixes are "[bug report]", > if they are > really bugs, that is fine... If it be something unconfirmed (need our > confirmation..,), > could you kindly change the prefix into some other representations...? I will > still look > into all of them at least... and that makes me feel a bit better and easy.... > thanks...)
Of course I thought it *was* a bug... I've sent probably 1800 of these emails. It's a script but I look over the email before sending. Maybe when people start using the Link: tag I will be able to make these show up as reply to an email. Normally, I sent them out in a much more timely sort of way but all the erofs warnings show up as new with the move out of staging so I have been re-reviewing the warnings. So last August when this code was new, I must have seen the warning but read the code correctly. I checked before I sent this email to make sure we hadn't discusssed it before. But this time I got confused by the DBG_BUGON(). I decided to treat it as a no-op because it can be configured to do nothing if you have CONFIG_EROFS_FS_DEBUG disabled. Plus it has "DBG" in the name so it felt like debug code. But I ended up focussing on it instead of seeing the "(nofail ? __GFP_NOFAIL : 0)" bit. The DBG_BUGON() is unreachable and misleading nonsense fluff. :( regards, dan carpenter
