From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9947FBE for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 04:06:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C85E304043 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 02:06:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id AmeJsEq0a7UZYYk6 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 02:06:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:06:47 -0200 From: Carlos Maiolino Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: pass mp to XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_* Message-ID: <20150210100647.GB1735@hades.maiolino.org> References: <54D53E8C.8070207@redhat.com> <20150208213502.GA4251@dastard> <20150209130926.GA18336@laptop.bfoster> <20150209211744.GT12722@dastard> <20150209214359.GN18336@laptop.bfoster> <20150209215827.GW12722@dastard> <54D94A2A.8020906@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54D94A2A.8020906@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Eric Sandeen , Brian Foster , xfs-oss On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 06:00:42PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 2/9/15 3:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 04:43:59PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:17:44AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > ... > > >> Sure, but ASSERT_CORRUPT_RET() is the same length as the example above. > >> ASSERT_CORRUPT_GOTO() is only a few chars longer than the associated > >> example. We could still use WANT over ASSERT I suppose to shorten it up > >> further. Either of those are at least still self-explanatory in my > >> opinion. > > > > Thinking on it a bit further, the XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED macros have an > > internal ASSERT in them, so they are effectively an ASSERT > > statement. I could live with those names, especially as ASSERT is > > something that can be compiled into production kernels via > > CONFIG_XFS_WARN=y to turn them into error messages... > > Sooooo you all want "ASSERT_CORRUPTED_RET / ASSERT_CORRUPTED_GOTO" ? > > In a light mauve? ;) > I could live with that, better a relative big macro's name than a shorter abbreviated one that you should buy a crystal ball to really understand what it means :) > -Eric > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs