On 12/12 2013 03:36 AM, Ben Myers wrote:
> 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.
I agree to Eric as well since either errno cannot indicate this situation much
cleaner. I also can not find an existing errno could be used for this
maybe someday there would have a particular errno to be used in this case if
complain about it.