From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:16518 "EHLO ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752330AbdEJKoy (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2017 06:44:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 20:44:50 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: make fatal assert failures conditional in debug mode Message-ID: <20170510104450.GJ17542@dastard> References: <1493991086-18817-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <20170505230943.GG17542@dastard> <20170508125530.GA29840@bfoster.bfoster> <20170508231448.GH17542@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Brian Foster , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:02:16PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/8/17 6:14 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> So for me, the ability to live switch between BUG() or warn in debug > >> mode doesn't add value. In fact, it is less ideal than just being able > >> to (re)compile a kernel module and load it with expected behavior. That > > > Who uses kernel modules for testing? > > I do, all the time. And I don't - haven't for years - but that misses the point of the question. It was a rhetorical question attempting to make people think about more than just their own workflow-specific details... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com