On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 01:46:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:12:49 +0300
> Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's much more visible that some printk. I still has an unexplained oops
> > in proc, so let's leave it for a while.
> > --- a/fs/proc/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/inode.c
> > @@ -37,12 +37,7 @@ void de_put(struct proc_dir_entry *de)
> > {
> > if (de) {
> > lock_kernel();
> > - if (!atomic_read(&de->count)) {
> > - printk("de_put: entry %s already free!\n", de->name);
> > - unlock_kernel();
> > - return;
> > - }
> > -
> > + BUG_ON(atomic_read(&de->count) == 0);
> > if (atomic_dec_and_test(&de->count)) {
> > if (de->deleted) {
> > printk("de_put: deferred delete of %s\n",
>
> I don't see that an error in here _requires_ that we nuke the machine.
> Surely we can emit a warning and then recover in some fashion?
Hmm... atomic_dec_and_test() in -mm already has diagnostics¹ when doing
0 => -1 transition, google says this check triggered only once. I think
we should just drop it.
¹ i386 only :^)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
