xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/7] quota: add new quotactl Q_XGETNEXTQUOTA

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] quota: add new quotactl Q_XGETNEXTQUOTA
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:00:25 -0600
Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160126125710.GA23820@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1453487136-12681-1-git-send-email-sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> <1453487136-12681-3-git-send-email-sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> <20160126125710.GA23820@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
On 1/26/16 6:57 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 22-01-16 12:25:31, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Q_XGETNEXTQUOTA is exactly like Q_XGETQUOTA, except that it
>> will return quota information for the id equal to or greater
>> than the id requested.  In other words, if the requested id has
>> no quota, the command will return quota information for the
>> next higher id which does have a quota set.  If no higher id
>> has an active quota, -ESRCH is returned.
> 
> Actually, is -ESRCH the right return value? It seems XFS traditionally
> returns -ENOENT when id doesn't exist. So that would look more logical to
> me.

Hm, I was just going by the quotactl manpage, TBH, which says:

       ESRCH          No disc quota is found for the indicated user.


But yes, you are right, it is ENOENT for xfs... argh.  I suppose the
quotactl manpage could use an update as well, then.

At this point do you want me to update the patches & resend or do you
want to fix that up too?  :(  I reference -ESRCH in comments too, I think.

-Eric

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