[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: return ENOSPC when trying to set more ACLs than XFS_ACL

To: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: return ENOSPC when trying to set more ACLs than XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:36:22 -0600
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5292D8AB.5080003@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <52921D12.7040104@xxxxxxxxxx> <5292C557.9020008@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5292D8AB.5080003@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey Jeff,

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57:15PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
> On 11/25 2013 11:34 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > On 11/24/13, 9:36 AM, Jeff Liu wrote:
> >> From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> We currently return EINVAL when trying to set more ACL entries than
> >> XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES(), but it would be a bit more meaningful to return
> >> ENOSPC in this situation, because the later is used to indicate there
> >> is no more space to store new ACLs IMHO.
> > 
> > I'm not quite convinced that it's better; the user will get an
> > error string of "no space left on device" which is misleading too,
> I admit that both looks misleading...
> > and I'd argue that it's no better than "invalid argument."
> > 
> > To me, I think it's not worth changing, but others may disagree.
> > 
> > (I guess looking at ext4, it uses ENOSPC for some similar constraints,
> > so maybe three is precedent for this)
> Btrfs also uses ENOSPC, but JFS would return something like "Argument list 
> too long"
> in this case.

I tend to agree with Eric on this one, but if Dave or Christoph want to weigh
in that's cool.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>