Thoughts on TMPFS no longer being considered "highly
kostikbel at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 09:38:05 UTC 2011
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
> > 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20110628/ac275470/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current