Andrew, I'm providing a patch that puts the test in some more or less trivial cases. Maybe putting them in -mm tree could give them the test environment they need. But even if the patch gets in, there are still some cases that I don't feel comfortable with right now to fix. On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:36:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > > > Maybe the best solution is neither one nor another. Testing and failing > > > gracefully seems better. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > I certainly agree with you there. I neither want a deadlock nor > > corruption. (-: > > Yup. In the present implementation __getblk_slow() "cannot fail". It's > conceivable that at some future stage we'll change __getblk_slow() so that > it returns NULL on an out-of-memory condition. Anyone making such a change > would have to audit all callers to make sure that they handle the NULL > correctly. > > It is appropriate at this time to fix the callers so that they correctly > handle the NULL return. However, it is non-trivial to actually _test_ such > changes, and such changes should be tested. Or at least, they should be > done with considerable care and knowledge of the specific filesystems. > -- ===================================== Glauber de Oliveira Costa IBM Linux Technology Center - Brazil glommer@br.ibm.com =====================================