From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932884Ab2JESjk (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:39:40 -0400 Received: from li9-11.members.linode.com ([67.18.176.11]:54015 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932699Ab2JESji (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:39:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:39:33 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Anatol Pomozov Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Louis Huemiller Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Preserve error code in get_empty_filp() Message-ID: <20121005183933.GA12693@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Anatol Pomozov , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Louis Huemiller References: <1347505915-27984-1-git-send-email-anatol.pomozov@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 11:16:12AM -0700, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > Hi, AlViro > > Is any reason why this change is ignored? For me it looks like a > straightforward bugfix. > > A little bit of context for this change. We at Google work on a test > framework that shows how kernel behaves under memory pressure. In the > codepath that I am fixing the syscalls return ENFILE error, but in > fact the correct error would be ENOMEM. get_empty_filp() should > preserve the original error and not to replace all errors with ENFILE. Anatol, I suggest that you rebase this patch against the latest kernel and then resend it; I just tried editing out the angle brackets, and the patch completely failed to apply; every single patch hunk was rejected by patch(1). This may be because when you forwarded the patch as a reply, the whitespace got corrupted --- but that's why I never recommend resending a patch as part of a reply. Instead, send a new patch as a new thread, freshly regenerated against whatever is most likely to be useful to the maintainer (aviro in this case) and then put a ping as a comment or in the subject line. Cheers, - Ted % patch -b -p1 < /tmp/patch patching file arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 2221. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file arch/ia64/kernel/perfmon.c.rej patching file fs/anon_inodes.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 160. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/anon_inodes.c.rej patching file fs/file_table.c Hunk #2 FAILED at 108. Hunk #3 FAILED at 117. Hunk #4 FAILED at 149. Hunk #5 FAILED at 173. 4 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/file_table.c.rej patching file fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 984. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c.rej patching file fs/namei.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 2885. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/namei.c.rej patching file fs/open.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 781. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/open.c.rej patching file fs/pipe.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 1035. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file fs/pipe.c.rej patching file ipc/shm.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 1039. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file ipc/shm.c.rej patching file mm/shmem.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 2948. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file mm/shmem.c.rej patching file net/socket.c Hunk #1 FAILED at 369. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file net/socket.c.rej