Android: Remove some extra CHECKs()

Android: Remove some extra CHECKs()

These were only temporarily needed for root-causing some bot
flakiness.

BUG=396568
TBR=feng@chromium.org
NOTRY=True

Committed: https://crrev.com/d1921eb286f471f9515d1d36713a16d9544ba1fb
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#308122}

[no sievers, 2014-12-12 18:21:48]

The CQ bit was checked by sievers@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-12 18:22:39]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/796163003/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-12 18:23:53]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-12-12 18:24:45]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/d1921eb286f471f9515d1d36713a16d9544ba1fb
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#308122}

[Feng Qian, 2014-12-12 18:29:42]

https://codereview.chromium.org/796163003/diff/1/content/browser/child_proces...
File content/browser/child_process_launcher.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/796163003/diff/1/content/browser/child_proces...
content/browser/child_process_launcher.cc:192:
CHECK_NE(switches::kZygoteProcess, process_type);
Should we log the unknown process type on Java-side instead of 'assert false'
there? If that happens, we will know what new process type is.

[no sievers, 2014-12-12 18:50:44]

https://codereview.chromium.org/796163003/diff/1/content/browser/child_proces...
File content/browser/child_process_launcher.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/796163003/diff/1/content/browser/child_proces...
content/browser/child_process_launcher.cc:192:
CHECK_NE(switches::kZygoteProcess, process_type);
On 2014/12/12 18:29:42, Feng Qian wrote:
> Should we log the unknown process type on Java-side instead of 'assert false'
> there? If that happens, we will know what new process type is.

If we want to log we can do that here as well, i.e. 
  CHECK(process_type == switches::kGpuProcess ||    process_type ==
switches::kRendererProcess) << "Unsupported process type" << process_type;

Also note that the call stack here has the original process launch site.The
latter task that has the java assert() is posted as a separate task.

[Feng Qian, 2014-12-12 19:07:32]

https://codereview.chromium.org/796163003/diff/1/content/browser/child_proces...
File content/browser/child_process_launcher.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/796163003/diff/1/content/browser/child_proces...
content/browser/child_process_launcher.cc:192:
CHECK_NE(switches::kZygoteProcess, process_type);
On 2014/12/12 18:50:44, sievers wrote:
> On 2014/12/12 18:29:42, Feng Qian wrote:
> > Should we log the unknown process type on Java-side instead of 'assert
false'
> > there? If that happens, we will know what new process type is.
> 
> If we want to log we can do that here as well, i.e. 
>   CHECK(process_type == switches::kGpuProcess ||    process_type ==
> switches::kRendererProcess) << "Unsupported process type" << process_type;
> 
> Also note that the call stack here has the original process launch site.The
> latter task that has the java assert() is posted as a separate task.

Sounds good to me, can you add the process type to log here?