From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754102AbYDZJh7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:37:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754057AbYDZJhg (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:37:36 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:53970 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753936AbYDZJhf (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:37:35 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:37:32 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com, Artem Bityutskiy , LKML , Adrian Hunter , David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 26/26] UBIFS: include FS to compilation Message-ID: <20080426093732.GB17730@infradead.org> References: <1206629746-4298-1-git-send-email-Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com> <1206629746-4298-27-git-send-email-Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com> <84144f020804010039n47133bd3l63f02258a2670e72@mail.gmail.com> <47F1F7A6.5020105@yandex.ru> <84144f020804010215o209fbed8gf629dc6557fcd091@mail.gmail.com> <47F1FF98.9020809@nokia.com> <84144f020804010304w7057a68cqa5b9a7a5364b9489@mail.gmail.com> <47F20DEE.7090105@nokia.com> <84144f020804010433xafc6f28o5a5375ce82903a7a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84144f020804010433xafc6f28o5a5375ce82903a7a@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 02:33:37PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > I don't know how many times I have to say this: you're doing it at the > wrong level! The reason you want to compile them out is because you've > added crap like this all over your code paths: > > ubifs_assert(PageLocked(page)); > ubifs_assert(!PageChecked(page)); > ubifs_assert(!PagePrivate(page)); > > So instead of arguing about this you really ought to look at what > SLUB, for example, does. It's perfectly okay to have _debugging > checks_ compiled out (stuff like verify_inode and such) but at the > assertion level it makes no sense whatsoever! Yes, having this in filesystems is not very nice. If someone feels very strong about interface assertation we should add them at the method level boundary so that the interface is verified for all filesystems.