|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Theodore Tso <tytso-AT-mit.edu>|
|| ||Re: [PATCH] fs: Correct SuS compliance for open of large file
|| ||Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:23:43 -0700|
|| ||Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe-AT-oracle.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org>,
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:59:02 -0400 Theodore Tso <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 04:19:12PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Well it's not my call, just seems like a really bad idea to change the
> > > error value. You can't claim full coverage for such testing anyway, it's
> > > one of those things that people will complain about two releases later
> > > saying it broke app foo.
> > Strange since we've spent years changing error values and getting them
> > right in the past.
> I doubt there any apps which are going to specifically check for EFBIG
> and do soemthing different if they get EOVERFLOW instead. If it was
> something like EAGAIN or EPERM, I'd be more concerned, but EFBIG
> vs. EOVERFLOW? C'mon!
Yeah. There's no correct answer here (apart from "get it right the first
time"). There are risks either way, and it _is_ a bug. Bummer.
> > There are real things to worry about - sysfs, sysfs, sysfs, ... and all
> > the other crap which is continually breaking stuff, not spec compliance
> > corrections that don't break things but move us into compliance with the
> > standard
> I've got to agree with Alan, the sysfs/udev breakages that we've done
> are far more significant, and the fact that we continue to expose
> internal data structures via sysfs is a gaping open pit is far more
> likely to cause any kind of problems than changing an error return.
Funny you should mention that. I was staring in astonishment at the
pending sysfs patch pile last night. Forty syfs patches and twenty-odd
patches against driver core and the kobject layer.
That's a huge amount of churn for a core piece of kernel infrastructure
which has been there for four or five years. Not a good sign. I mean,
it's not as if, say, the CPU scheduler guys keep on rewriting all their
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)