On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, David Miller wrote: > From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:07:09 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:31:50 +0300 (EEST) > > > > > Stupid error from my side. Even though now that I noticed this, > > > I hoped it would have been an optimization but no, the counter > > > hint is then incorrect. Thus clearing is necessary for now (I > > > still suspect though that this path is never executed). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Better safe than sorry :-) > > > > We can start putting more aggressive assertions around if you'd > > like to get some invariants like that validated. > > In case it's not clear I did apply this patch.
I think more this on Friday, maybe WARN_ON could be placed there so that no harm is being done if it ever get there, probably a candidate for unlikely, if this is really needed. Anyway, applying the NULL this patch does no harm (it was supposed to be that way right from the beginning)... :-) ...but lets keep in mind that the actual goal is, of course, to get rid of the hint altogether, rather than doing these clearing things... :-) -- i.
