[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F4E97EE.2090706@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:26:06 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
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
Il 29/02/2012 20:56, Ray Lee ha scritto:
> 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.
It's not so easy, see http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1244476.
Paolo
--
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