[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120613235256.GX22848@dastard>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:52:56 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: add FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE to fallocate
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:24:12AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 13/06/2012 04:16, Dave Chinner ha scritto:
> >> > + BUG_ON((mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) && (mode & FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE));
> > Never put BUG_ON() or BUG() in XFS code that can return an error.
> > Return EINVAL if we chose not to support it, and if it's really
> > something we consider bad, emit a warning to syslog (i.e.
> > xfs_warn()) and potentially add a ASSERT() case so that debug
> > kernels will trip over it. Nobody should be panicing a production
> > system just because a user supplied a set of incorrect syscall
> > paramters....
>
> I know, the BUG_ON() is because it is ruled out in VFS code. Of course
> if I remove that code, this will not be a BUG_ON() anymore.
If we put a BUG_ON() for every condition the VFS checked in every
filesystem, we'd have so many BUG_ON checks we wouldn't be able to
find the code. If it's banned at the VFS, there's no need to assert
that inthe filesystem code....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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