On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 01:31 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 20.09.16 at 01:12, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > How's possible for the solution here to be "either remove the
> > ASSERT()
> > _OR_ change the code"? That really makes few sense to me... :-O
> I disagree: Whether fixing/removing an ASSERT() that triggered or
> adjusting other code to make the ASSERT() not trigger can indeed
> both be an option, and may to some degree be a matter of taste.
Yes, of course this is a possibility... I thought it was clear that I
was simplifying things, but maybe I was simplifying too much, or "just"
expressed myself bad.

What I wasn't clear about was whether it is _correctness_ that is at
risk or not. And that's right because I thought we established already
that this wasn't a correctness issue, while it looked to me, from
reading the discussion, that it actually may be.

My bad again, for sure, sorry. Now I'll go back to the code to fix my
misconceptions and (hopefully) be able to make myself more useful. :-)

Thanks and Regards,
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Xen-devel mailing list

Reply via email to