[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YfM/ngiPN5wkwjii@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 00:58:06 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@...il.com>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cifs: Implement cache I/O by accessing the cache
directly
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 06:55:23PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
> Regression tests so far on Dave's cifs fscache patch series are going
> fine. First series of tests I ran were this:
> http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/11/builds/160
> but I have to run additional tests with fscache enabled etc.
>
> I saw that checkpatch had some minor complaints on this patch (patch
> 4) which I cleaned up, but was wondering other's thoughts on this
> checkpatch warning:
>
> WARNING: Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code
> rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()
> #101: FILE: fs/cifs/file.c:4449:
>
> ie
>
> + page = readahead_page(ractl);
> + BUG_ON(!page);
Just remove it. The kernel will crash just fine without putting in an
explicit BUG_ON, and it'll be obvious what the problem is.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists