Re: [PATCH] fs: Correct SuS compliance for open of large file without options

From: Jens Axboe
Date: Thu Sep 27 2007 - 19:42:21 EST

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at