xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: return ENOSPC when trying to set more ACLs than XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:04:32 -0800
Cc: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131211193622.GG1935@xxxxxxx>
References: <52921D12.7040104@xxxxxxxxxx> <5292C557.9020008@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5292D8AB.5080003@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131211193622.GG1935@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 01:36:22PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > (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 think ENOSPC is a really bad idea in this case, but I also think we
should make sure Linux filesystems behave unfiformly.

Jeff, can you write a summary of the errors returned by all common
filesystems and post it to -fsdevel for comment?  We should have a
common error for this, and I'd be a happier man if it weren't ENOSPC,
but that's secondary.

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