[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1211011627120.19567@eggly.anvils>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: shmem_getpage_gfp VM_BUG_ON triggered. [3.7rc2]
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 04:03:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > Except... earlier in the thread you explained how you hacked
> > #define VM_BUG_ON(cond) WARN_ON(cond)
> > to get this to come out as a warning instead of a bug,
> > and now it looks as if "a user" has here done the same.
> >
> > Which is very much a user's right, of course; but does
> > make me wonder whether that user might actually be davej ;)
>
> indirectly. I made the same change in the Fedora kernel a while ago
> to test a hypothesis that we weren't getting any VM_BUG_ON reports.
Fedora turns on CONFIG_DEBUG_VM?
All mm developers should thank you for the wider testing exposure;
but I'm not so sure that Fedora users should thank you for turning
it on - really it's for mm developers to wrap around !assertions or
more expensive checks (e.g. checking calls) in their development.
Or did I read a few months ago that some change had been made to
such definitions, and VM_BUG_ON(contents) are evaluated even when
the config option is off? I do hope I'm mistaken on that.
Hugh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists