Hi Dan, On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:11:44PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > 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.
Thanks for your effort to communities [thumb] > > 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. :( I fully understand that :) That is fine. In a word, thanks for reporting :) Thanks, Gao Xiang > > regards, > dan carpenter >
