From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mgwym02.jp.fujitsu.com ([211.128.242.41]:19615 "EHLO mgwym02.jp.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754259AbcAYCem (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:34:42 -0500 Received: from m3050.s.css.fujitsu.com (msm.b.css.fujitsu.com [10.134.21.208]) by yt-mxq.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B88AC02B6 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:24:27 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix error number in send.c To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <201601220013.AA00000@WIN-5MHF4RKU941.jp.fujitsu.com> <20160122140043.GS4227@twin.jikos.cz> Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Tsutomu Itoh Message-ID: <56A58737.906@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:23:51 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160122140043.GS4227@twin.jikos.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, David, On 2016/01/22 23:00, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:13:25AM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: >> ENOTSUPP should not be returned to the user program. >> (cf. include/linux/errno.h) >> Therefore, EOPNOTSUPP is used instead of ENOTSUPP. > > I'm not sure that EOPNOTSUPP is the right error code here. I'd rather > make it EINVAL, the bug we're talking about is a new type of inode > outside of the S_IFMT bits. "not supported" would mean we don't support > it but we could in theory. Thanks for review. In the meaning that btrfs-send is not supporting a new type of inode now, EOPNOTSUPP is acceptable, I think. Thanks, Tsutomu