Mike Belopuhov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:43 -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > > Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > still looking forward to replies to the original set of changes. > > > > i'm a little in between. on the one hand, yes, ok, it's good that we don't > > leave corrupted buffers around with bad data. on the other hand, don't we > > want > > to learn about these problems and fix them? i don't think the change is > > wrong, > > but it seems like it covers up another issue. > > Device drivers do not consider such situations as issues. > Yes, they're edge cases that we can't normally trigger, > but they're not bugs in drivers since over the years > developers have deliberately put such code there.
What I'm getting at is if these edge cases start happening in regular use, we'd like to know about and fix the driver. :) But I agree it's bad to pass weird stuff to the filesystem. anyway, ok if you like it. > > So I'm not entirely sure what do you think this is papering > over. There's a clear violation of contract between buffer > cache and the filesystem: FFS asked for 16k, got 16k plus > resid of 20k which is weird to say the least.
