On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:57:45AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Errrgh, the golden output of this test reflects the changes to the input
> > > checking in Anna/Peng's copy_file_range/clone_file_range patches.
> > >
> > > So, I guess the question is, should I reset the golden output to whatever
> > > btrfs spits out before that patchset, and we'll consider the alterations
> > > to be bugs/regressions/whatever that ought to be fixed in their patches?
> >
> > Some bits in btrfs don't seem kosher. But it would be good to
> > explicitly send patches for btrfs to adopt to what might make more
> > sense, and then follow it in the other implementations.
>
> Btrfs does check for directories, but we should really be checking for
> regular files too. In the end, we only copy extents that would
> correspond with regular files, so we're sneaking by.
Yes, I saw that. So so far I'd suggest something like the following
for btrfs:
- return EBADFD for missing read/wite permissions
- return EINVAL for wrong non-directory file types as the
source fd
And then make the test case and other implementations match this.
Does this sound like a plan?
|