On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:42:07AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> Hi KIB,
> Thanks for the list of issues you know about -- I don't believe we have
> PRs covering those.
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:21:53PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> > - I believe Peter Holm has more test cases that fails with tmpfs. He
> > would have more details. I somewhat remember some panic on execve(2) the
> > binary located on tmpfs.
> I've been following the patches you've been passing to Peter Holm as part
> of this thread.  Seems good progress has been made in fixing some of the
> issues.
> > Removing the warning will not make the issues coming away.
> Quite true, but is there any other subsystem where we know we have bugs
> and have put up such a scary warning?
> I've never used ZFS on i386, but I understand it is trivial to panic
> with out-of-the-box settings.  We don't print a dire warning for ZFS
> usage on 32-bit platforms.  So I'm not sure we should keep it for TMPFS.
> I cannot tell from your response if you're OK or against removing
> the warning.  [especially if your patches pass the Peter Holm test
> and remove some of the bugs]
If anything, the removal of the said warning would reduce the kernel
text size. Probably, it should be moved to the man page, which already
has similar, but not that strong, wording.

Attachment: pgpP7oIgmHhTr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to