Re: Thoughts on TMPFS no longer being considered "highly
--tCg73T+C/jTUGm03
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> > Removing the warning will not make the issues coming away.
>=20
> Quite true, but is there any other subsystem where we know we have bugs
> and have put up such a scary warning?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
--tCg73T+C/jTUGm03
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4JoPcACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jZbgCfRPXd7uPMqlpSg/x/SgSG5evJ
6kYAoOomggMYCwSJiS1B8F2udPFk0el+
=Z1cq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--tCg73T+C/jTUGm03--
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 19 之 21 篇)：