On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 11:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > I still very much disagree with you and _will_ keep adding warnings to > the wireless stack. This would be one of those places where it's totally > warranted, because it's actually impossible that this happens, for it to > something else would have to be changed to go wrong in how this is > called, for example. And come to think of it, cases like this are exactly why some people decide to crash the system on warnings. It's things that the developers thought were impossible, but should be double-checked. If we stop putting warnings on such places, then the decision to crash on warnings becomes entirely meaningless. So seems to me that just lashing out against warnings all the time is actually detrimental to the intent of such configurations? johannes
