From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54670 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1733161AbfETQMC (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 12:12:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 12:12:00 -0400 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [Bug 203655] XFS: Assertion failed: 0, xfs_log_recover.c, line: 551 Message-ID: <20190520161200.GB32784@bfoster> References: 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: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:02:06PM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203655 > > Eric Sandeen (sandeen@sandeen.net) changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |sandeen@sandeen.net > > --- Comment #2 from Eric Sandeen (sandeen@sandeen.net) --- > I think the question here is whether the ASSERT() is valid - we don't ever want > to assert on disk corruption, it should only be for "this should never happen > in the code" scenarios. > Makes sense. It's not clear to me whether that's the intent of the bug, but regardless I think it would be reasonable to kill off that particular assert. We already warn and return an error. Brian > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are watching the assignee of the bug.