On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:40:15PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> > > @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ cont:
> > > break;
> > >
> > > if (page_in_index + 1 >= total_pages_in) {
> > > - ret = -1;
> > > + ret = -EIO;
> >
> > That looks like an internal error, we should never ask for more pages
> > than is in the input, so the buffer offset calculations are wrong.
>
> Yeah, but EIO is still arguably the right thing. There's nothing
> userspace can do about broken kernel code. We don't want to give them
> an error that could be misinterpreted as them having used an interface
> incorrectly. We could wrap WARN_ON_ONCE() around it, I suppose. I'm
> inclined to leave it as is.
Ok. An EIO is better than an ASSERT or BUG_ON, the error paths will
handle it. I think adding the WARN_ON_ONCE is a good compromise, I'm not
expecting to see this error but the stack trace will help.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
