From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Generic name to handle and open by handle syscalls
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:46:56 -0700
Message-ID: <20100223124656.053a4975@bike.lwn.net>
References: <1266558149-11460-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20100222160659.48a91f82@bike.lwn.net>
	<87ocjgib0j.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: hch@infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from tex.lwn.net ([70.33.254.29]:49719 "EHLO vena.lwn.net"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752716Ab0BWTq6 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:46:58 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87ocjgib0j.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:36 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > EAGAIN seems like a strange thing to return here.  ENOSPC maybe?  
> 
> The reason for me using EAGAIN was to give a hint that if the user
> reissue the call with new returned handle_size we should be ok. But
> Andreas suggested EOVERFLOW. So i will use EOVERFLOW. Do you think
> ENOSPC is he right error value here ?

EOVERFLOW is probably better than ENOSPC, I'd go with that.

jon