Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:50:39 -0800 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] let fat handle MS_SYNCHRONOUS flag |
| |
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 08:34:30AM +0100, Colin Leroy wrote: > On 23 Nov 2004 at 19h11, Matt Mackall wrote: > > Hi, > > > BUG_ON(!bh); > > sync_dirty_buffer(bh); > > brelse(bh); > > I wasn't sure sync_dirty_buffer and brelse checked for nullity :)
It may, that wasn't my point. Your original patch had BUG_ON(1) which by itself was weird (use BUG() instead). But then it was in the else part of an if statement. So it read like:
if (bh) { ... } else { if (1) BUG(); /* stop kernel */ }
BUG is for reporting things that should never happen (otherwise you'd actually handle them) and so should be used in such a way that they don't complicate the code flow.
> > Concept seems good, and the implementation otherwise looks good at > > first glance. > > Cool :) Should I submit an updated patch to Andrew for -mm ?
Probably ought to go through Ogawa, if he can be convinced to take it. Please take a look at adding -o sync and -o async options to override the superblock flag first.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |