On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:55:22PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:00:03PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > Due to commit 00e769d04c2c83029d6c71(btrfs-progs: Correct value printed > > by assertions/BUG_ON/WARN_ON), which changed the assert_trace() > > parameter, the condition passed to assert/WARN_ON/BUG_ON are logical > > notted for backtrace enabled and disabled case. > > > > Such behavior makes us easier to pass value wrong, and in fact it did > > cause us to pass wrong condition for ASSERT(). > > > > Instead of passing different conditions for ASSERT/WARN_ON/BUG_ON() > > manually, this patch will use ASSERT() to implement the resting > > ASSERT/WARN_ON/BUG() for disable backtrace case, and use assert_trace() > > to implement ASSERT() and BUG_ON(), to allow them to print correct > > value. > > > > Also, move WARN_ON() out of the ifdef branch, as it's completely the > > same for both branches. > > > > Cc: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Applied, thanks. And FYI, I've added a trace dump for BUG_ON and removed the value negation from ASSERT. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
