From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751774AbWF1XXh (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:23:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751775AbWF1XXh (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:23:37 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:30912 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751774AbWF1XXR (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:23:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:23:05 +1000 From: Nathan Scott To: Erik Frederiksen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: IS_ERR Threshold Value Message-ID: <20060629092305.D1344246@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> References: <20060629084128.C1344246@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <1151536413.3903.1135.camel@girvin.pmc-sierra.bc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1151536413.3903.1135.camel@girvin.pmc-sierra.bc.ca>; from erik_frederiksen@pmc-sierra.com on Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 05:13:33PM -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 05:13:33PM -0600, Erik Frederiksen wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 16:41, Nathan Scott wrote: > > Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the XFS side of your report here - on > ... > XFS has acted correctly. The only reason I bring it up is this is how > the bug was brought to my attention. Ah, OK. When you said this... | it caused an alignment exception in the XFS open call when quota has | been exceeded in the linux-mips 2.6.14 kernel. I think that the XFS | code has changed enough that this bug isn't in newer versions, though I | haven't done a thorough investigation. ... I couldn't think of anything we'd changed in XFS that would have addressed this since that kernel version. > If there won't be any strange side effects (I don't have the experience > to accurately comment on this), I think turning the threshold value up > to something we can get away with in IS_ERR_VALUE() would be > appropriate. Seems right to me too, FWIW. cheers. -- Nathan