Subject: Re: S_IFREG support to mknod(2)
To: None <>
From: Antti Kantee <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 02/16/2007 19:23:29
On Fri Feb 16 2007 at 16:51:45 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> Not really, but you've made me look at sys_mknod()!
> AFAICT the recent changes for vn_start_write() have broken the error paths.

I can't see it.  if vn_start_write() fails, it will reset the situation
and restart.  And you can't end up both in the vn_start_write() failure
branch and the error branch without going through start and collecting

Of course it might be argued that if you're going to fail with EEXIST
anyway, you don't need to vn_start_write(), but that's not really a bug.

Am I not seeing it?

> As well as seeming to require some horrid (and replicated - probably
> elsewhere as well) code sequences that are likely (on the face of it)
> to get erronously copied to/from other places - especially since most of
> the code looks to be of the 'rarely executed' sort (where errors can
> remain hidden for years).

I have a theory that 97% of our error branches contain a bug because of
that reason.  I'm working on a proof ...

Antti Kantee <>                     Of course he runs NetBSD                
    "la qualité la plus indispensable du cuisinier est l'exactitude"