On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:59:02 -0400 Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> 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! Yeah. There's no correct answer here (apart from "get it right the first time"). There are risks either way, and it _is_ a bug. Bummer. > > There are real things to worry about - sysfs, sysfs, sysfs, ... and all > > the other crap which is continually breaking stuff, not spec compliance > > corrections that don't break things but move us into compliance with the > > standard > > I've got to agree with Alan, the sysfs/udev breakages that we've done > are far more significant, and the fact that we continue to expose > internal data structures via sysfs is a gaping open pit is far more > likely to cause any kind of problems than changing an error return. Funny you should mention that. I was staring in astonishment at the pending sysfs patch pile last night. Forty syfs patches and twenty-odd patches against driver core and the kobject layer. That's a huge amount of churn for a core piece of kernel infrastructure which has been there for four or five years. Not a good sign. I mean, it's not as if, say, the CPU scheduler guys keep on rewriting all their junk. oh, wait.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
