From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.39-rc1] LTP hitting max (8) nested links...
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:19:08 +0800
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Mu70wYSM0sVRWZnQzTPBOvqt6xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=pS8Wk9Ymtj=DeVqfgqBsbTXDHZA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
To: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=pS8Wk9Ymtj=DeVqfgqBsbTXDHZA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On 4 April 2011 11:13, Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com> wrote:
> When a test from the Linux Test Project [1] with 2.6.39-rc1 while
> trying to reproduce another fileystem issue, I quickly hit the 8
> nested link limit [2]:
> BUG_ON(nd->depth >= MAX_NESTED_LINKS)
>
> It seems a mutually exclusive condition to have such a technical limit
> in-kernel and a test in LTP which triggers that, unless there is a bug
> of course.
>
> Though 8 seems reasonable in most cases, it looks like an artificial
> and not technical limit which feels more broken - perhaps a WARN_ON or
> higher limit before BUG() is called makes sense?

Re-reading everything, nested here is actually recursively nested, not
consecutively nested, so will never succeed, so we expect this from
the LTP test.
-- 
Daniel J Blueman