On Thu, Sep 27 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
quoted text
> 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

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/