From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32E1C3A5A1 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:23:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E6B22189D for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:23:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3E6B22189D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46JPzM2SLZzDr7s for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 22:23:27 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com (client-ip=45.249.212.189; helo=huawei.com; envelope-from=gaoxiang25@huawei.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46JPzG4Y2HzDqcx for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 22:23:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A168E240C2175A5A0808; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:23:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:23:17 +0800 Received: from architecture4 (10.140.130.215) by dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:23:17 +0800 Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:22:29 +0800 From: Gao Xiang To: Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [bug report] staging: erofs: introduce erofs_grab_bio Message-ID: <20190828122229.GA102412@architecture4> References: <20190828105541.GA21320@mwanda> <20190828110249.GA56298@architecture4> <20190828113929.GA68628@architecture4> <20190828121143.GC8372@kadam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190828121143.GC8372@kadam> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Originating-IP: [10.140.130.215] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggeme711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.107) To dggeme762-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.108) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-BeenThere: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Linux EROFS file system List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, xiang@kernel.org, miaoxie@huawei.com Errors-To: linux-erofs-bounces+linux-erofs=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linux-erofs" Hi Dan, On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:11:44PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 07:39:29PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote: > > (p.s. It makes me little confused these subject prefixes are "[bug report]", if they are > > really bugs, that is fine... If it be something unconfirmed (need our confirmation..,), > > could you kindly change the prefix into some other representations...? I will still look > > into all of them at least... and that makes me feel a bit better and easy.... thanks...) > > Of course I thought it *was* a bug... > > I've sent probably 1800 of these emails. It's a script but I look over > the email before sending. Maybe when people start using the Link: tag > I will be able to make these show up as reply to an email. Thanks for your effort to communities [thumb] > > Normally, I sent them out in a much more timely sort of way but all the > erofs warnings show up as new with the move out of staging so I have > been re-reviewing the warnings. > > So last August when this code was new, I must have seen the warning but > read the code correctly. I checked before I sent this email to make > sure we hadn't discusssed it before. > > But this time I got confused by the DBG_BUGON(). I decided to treat it > as a no-op because it can be configured to do nothing if you have > CONFIG_EROFS_FS_DEBUG disabled. Plus it has "DBG" in the name so it > felt like debug code. But I ended up focussing on it instead of seeing > the "(nofail ? __GFP_NOFAIL : 0)" bit. The DBG_BUGON() is unreachable > and misleading nonsense fluff. :( I fully understand that :) That is fine. In a word, thanks for reporting :) Thanks, Gao Xiang > > regards, > dan carpenter >