Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 06:12:09 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        tgraf@suug.ch, manfred@colorfullife.com,
        guillaume.knispel@supersonicimagine.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] lib/rhashtable: convert param sanitations to WARN_ON
Message-ID: <20180528131209.mt4ythkapvfvykc7@linux-n805>
References: <20180524211135.27760-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20180524211135.27760-2-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20180528094048.etqeu2ubc227qrxf@gondor.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180528094048.etqeu2ubc227qrxf@gondor.apana.org.au>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 28 May 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
>I don't really see why we need these WARN_ONs.  The problem should
>be quite obvious when you're writing your code.
>
>If you really want them perhaps add them to the ipc code instead?

Well, I don't really _want_ them; nor does the ipc code which already
does a WARN_ON() (but that goes away in future patches). What I want
is to get rid of the return path. So I don't really care if we convert
them to WARN or remove them altogether. Would you be happy with the
later?

Thanks,
Davidlohr