[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinQzWx3f11v+w588z4CFBp8QT7xmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 11:01:12 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] fuse fix for 2.6.39
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Trond Myklebust
<Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> wrote:
>
> I was thinking rather of just returning an EIO if people try. We know
> that there are breakages w.r.t. certain operations as I pointed out in
> my previous email.
Umm. Returning an error is ok, but only if you _need_ to return an error.
Returning an error because you don't like it - that's just wrong.
So I would seriously suggest you return an error only when you really
need something from the nd. So I'd suggest
- for the automount case, return an error, since you can't change the filp
- for the LOOKUP_RCU case, just do the "nd && (nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU)"
The really doesn't seem to be many cases that really need the nd, so
why make it a hard error? *Most* users of nd already check for NULL,
either directly or indirectly (ie "if (!is_atomic_open(nd)) goto
no_open")
Linus
--
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