On Thu, Sep 27 2007, Theodore Tso 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! It's not checking EFBIG vs EOVERFLOW, it's checking one and not the other. But I digress, not trying to NAK the patch, just voicing my opinion on the matter. It's not something you can easily test and claim good app coverage, though. -- Jens Axboe - 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
