> In this particular case, I think I'll just have to relax the assertion
> and cause it to printk instead of BUG()ing, because I don't want to
> lose the protection of this test entirely.
>
> I'd really like to be able to detect such direct buffered-io
> "interference" from user-space, though, so that I could preserve the
> BUG() in cases where ext3 is getting this wrong internally. I'll look
> at that --- I may be able to achieve it through ext3's existing
> metadata flags.
Do I misunderstand the assertion? It seems to be saying:
'this buffer has been written out of order. If we were to crash
now, it will result in FS corruption'.
BUG()
If so, a printk alone might be better, since it would give the FS
the chance to put the correct data there anyway.
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/