[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADU53JUvh1a=0NgN87jV24PLY6GJma2bW=kFK_5ejFEp1djwEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:56:47 -0800
From: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: avoid false positive warnings on ioctl to partition
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Il 29/02/2012 01:14, Linus Torvalds ha scritto:
> > So I'm still not convinced this is safe, and feel a bit worried about
> > us possibly silently missing some things. That
> >
> > default:
> > return -ENOIOCTLCMD;
> >
> > is what worries me.
> >
> > Blocking the ones we *know* about and understand I'm perfectly fine
> > with. And the SG_IO case looks fine. It's the possibly unknown users
> > that still worry me.
>
> I understand.
>
> But being 100% sure that nothing breaks is
> impossible, unfortunately, so does it make sense to aim at 100%? And it
> should be extremely easy to bisect failures. Even with all the
> differences, it reminds me of the recent change to poll.
You can help avoid the bisect entirely by silently dropping the ones
you're sure about, and noisily dropping the ones you aren't.
--
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