From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:53348 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751903AbbKQPWy (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:22:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:22:52 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Chris Mason , Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: clone ioctl return values Message-ID: <20151117152251.GA5392@infradead.org> References: <20151116120431.GA2860@infradead.org> <20151117002822.GA32467@birch.djwong.org> <20151117105433.GA18093@infradead.org> <20151117135745.GF17545@ret.masoncoding.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151117135745.GF17545@ret.masoncoding.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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?