[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070927234158.GB10154@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 01:41:59 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, akpm@...l.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Correct SuS compliance for open of large file without options
On Thu, Sep 27 2007, Theodore Tso 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!
It's not checking EFBIG vs EOVERFLOW, it's checking one and not the
other. But I digress, not trying to NAK the patch, just voicing my
opinion on the matter. It's not something you can easily test and claim
good app coverage, though.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists