On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 09:37:18 +0200 jhascoet <ju.hasc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Julien Hascoet <ju.hasc...@gmail.com> > > As the ring is big enough by construction, the ring > enqueue ops cannot fail; therefore, we check and panic > on it as soon as it is detected. > > Signed-off-by: Julien Hascoet <ju.hasc...@gmail.com> > --- As per earlier patch in the email thread. This is a test for something that should never happen. Adding that test code is good and bad. Good, tests should never assume code works. Bad, it creates more paths and complexity in the test code. If the test was broken, and enqueue fails, it would fail in later checks because of unfreed mbuf's. Bottom line: lets skip this patch, it only happened to the submitter because of other problems in their environment.
