From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFE503CB35 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 15:55:12 -0500 (EST) From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1546808111; bh=Lt64OfkztXUYMMKzYcEjlhTQRs9F6SdzMzMCq+kFPsM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=RQOj4U3/sDd4naXPKfZcmHFjgDfQ7/vYCyS+Ds01z0uG7X7fHQ3AunlAu4KwJ1veB y/3mg7GbTV1/XkWFdtbiRuxfMLNWjSatQrWO066wXeCE1yb0DvTFbFtbgcwhZDq/wL beeCjOqZFZ4QtbqoV8X6jDQNnEdpjMIAs4No+l5c7eFVw0B5sF7lyrwuU08nGwHdKj Mtr1xgWLAVuJvxk21GlAlwnxM3CiQNcYKX8UtpSPiNIGSHR0pCPAdVcNjMuzIEzpI8 KAUUGTj4RMJa3LpcJxEsn7eDqfBmMPoPybnQizDb/c76EAB9sD0eq2MPA77VdyhEkH gXUJ1DPkRVKdQ== To: Pete Heist Cc: Sebastian Moeller , Cake List In-Reply-To: <11DD478A-E61D-4D62-92B3-30B9A9A9572E@heistp.net> References: <8736q8yumt.fsf@toke.dk> <4C422792-7E51-4DBA-A229-FA7D3F987FB6@heistp.net> <87zhsgxdao.fsf@toke.dk> <87wonjxvss.fsf@toke.dk> <0077CC34-490F-4D76-82D3-BE37B27F2E1C@heistp.net> <49A6DCF8-BE98-47F4-9C66-6B4288390A58@heistp.net> <87tvinxos7.fsf@toke.dk> <87r2drxnal.fsf@toke.dk> <45D43135-318B-48AD-B09B-69BBB034CE12@heistp.net> <87o98vxm57.fsf@toke.dk> <797FCC60-0048-4EF6-80BC-19707E9173FB@heistp.net> <87lg3zxdyr.fsf@toke.dk> <87imz2yiet.fsf@toke.dk> <252DC221-7024-4834-9757-96335372A5A7@heistp.net> <87ftu6yc2y.fsf@toke.dk> <11DD478A-E61D-4D62-92B3-30B9A9A9572E@heistp.net> Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:55:07 +0100 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <877efhy09g.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cake] cake infinite loop(?) with hfsc on one-armed router X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 20:55:12 -0000 Pete Heist writes: >> On Jan 5, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >>=20 >> Pete Heist writes: >>=20 >>>> On Jan 5, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Well, it's the same WARN_ON(), and if that patch had been applied, >>>> debugging our issue would have been a lot harder, I think. >>>=20 >>> Yikes, this is what I mean. I=E2=80=99d rather suffer the warning than = be >>> troubleshooting flaky behavior. That patch is applied in the latest >>> kernel, so hopefully it=E2=80=99s the right thing. >>=20 >> Well, if it causes false positives, getting rid of it is probably worth >> it just to avoid spurious bug reports :) > > If it helps finds bugs, I=E2=80=99d rather know about it. > > But, a warning once in a while might have been better than a repeated > one that sometimes makes a hard reboot necessary, causing need for a > manual, offline fsck in order to boot again. Just sayin=E2=80=99=E2=80=A6= ;) Yes, that is why WARN_ON tends to be frowned upon ;) -Toke