xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: return ENOSPC when trying to set more ACLs than XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES
From: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:32:09 +0800
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131213130432.GB22594@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <52921D12.7040104@xxxxxxxxxx> <5292C557.9020008@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5292D8AB.5080003@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131211193622.GG1935@xxxxxxx> <20131213130432.GB22594@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
On 12/13 2013 21:04 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
Yep, let me gather up those info...

Thanks,
-Jeff

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