On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, David Miller wrote:

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:07:09 -0700 (PDT)

quoted

From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <redacted>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:31:50 +0300 (EEST)

quoted

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 <redacted>

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.