From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org ([198.145.29.98]:44144 "EHLO mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1733161AbfETQMF (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 12:12:05 -0400 Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9D828917 for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 16:12:05 +0000 (UTC) From: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org Subject: [Bug 203655] XFS: Assertion failed: 0, xfs_log_recover.c, line: 551 Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 16:12:04 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203655 --- Comment #3 from bfoster@redhat.com --- 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.