From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BCCC433E0 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CE1207F5 for ; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:29:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="tTazxQpE" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729219AbgEMP3n (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 11:29:43 -0400 Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:58202 "EHLO userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728678AbgEMP3m (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 May 2020 11:29:42 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04DFIYJB162888; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:29:37 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=zcvvB9nC3z59/NXQwJa+c0RmnWFMPJIaLSuWpYoWDq8=; b=tTazxQpEmfHNkeQ/yEGH4iOYpHEuJaBlI9b33ri39MnQlZHx37Twio2BJmbI91SKpM/A EdqDY9QUVohJk6phfSxBjEZarl7D5rv62nPefURs+Hh7KkeOqbB+O0/Npk+CBupQHnQe gyodU7qrt3xoqacA2E7ZujhDbqZqbQlfH8htu6KqzirqIHPgMBs+Pn3EO5Bt99lLV9Cd fb2iveWrrxPCOw/pc3UZd7N0cC7HtJEkvRqBtCjbywYqV2WxKicYrt0yqJY4T7UTnDlK iJpZ1YyA2hJjBojy9LfmARPLW3IQBfjKKC6ZiJOkCK5BcIj7T/IyXQpep7JVe+94Emv8 qQ== Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3100yfvwca-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 May 2020 15:29:37 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04DFI3xR138473; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:29:37 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3100yes95y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 13 May 2020 15:29:37 +0000 Received: from abhmp0018.oracle.com (abhmp0018.oracle.com [141.146.116.24]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 04DFTZ7I032109; Wed, 13 May 2020 15:29:35 GMT Received: from localhost (/67.169.218.210) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 13 May 2020 08:29:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 08:29:34 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Brian Foster , Eric Sandeen , linux-xfs Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: remove XFS_QMOPT_ENOSPC flag Message-ID: <20200513152934.GX6714@magnolia> References: <447d7fec-2eff-fa99-cd19-acdf353c80d4@redhat.com> <11a44fb8-d59d-2e57-73bd-06e216efa5e7@redhat.com> <20200508130154.GC27577@bfoster> <57c07fd1-9dd1-8a03-da29-2b1b99cfa2ed@sandeen.net> <20200508162129.GJ27577@bfoster> <20200512233443.GP6714@magnolia> <20200513110016.GA44225@bfoster> <5d9a041d-fb28-6629-8ca1-7f474f8c376b@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5d9a041d-fb28-6629-8ca1-7f474f8c376b@sandeen.net> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9620 signatures=668687 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=5 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005130137 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9620 signatures=668687 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=5 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005130137 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:39:47AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/13/20 6:00 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:34:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:21:29PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > >>> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:45:48AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>>> On 5/8/20 8:01 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > > ... > > >>>> You're right that my patch changes these to ENOSPC. > >>>> > >>>>> Is the intent to change behavior such that -ENOSPC is > >>>>> unconditional for project quota reservation failures? > >>>> > >>>> Now it's a conundrum. I /think/ the current behavior is due to an oversight, but > >>>> > >>>> a) I'm not certain, and > >>>> b) can we change it now? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Heh, I can't really tell what the intended/expected behavior is. For > >>> whatever it's worth, it seems reasonable enough to me to change it based > >>> on the fact that project quotas have been expected to return -ENOSPC in > >>> at least some common cases for many years. It seems unlikely that users > >>> would know or care about the change in behavior in the subset noted > >>> above, but who knows. It might be good to get some other opinions. :P > >> > >> "I bet you a beer at the next conference (if they ever happen again) > >> that nobody will notice"? :P > >> > > > > Apocalypse aside, free beer is free beer. ;) > > > >> TBH while I find it a little odd that project quota gets to return > >> ENOSPC instead of EDQUOT, I find it more odd that sometimes it doesn't. > >> This at least gets us to consistent behavior (EDQUOT for user/group, > >> ENOSPC for project) so for the series: > >> > > > > Works for me, but can we update the commit log to describe the behavior > > change before this goes in? In fact, it might even make sense to retitle > > the patch to something like "xfs: always return -ENOSPC on project quota > > reservation failure" and let the flag removal be a side effect of that. > > Yes that's a good plan. I'm also happy to just combine the 2 patches if > that's better. I'll sync up w/ Darrick to see if this can still happen.e > > Thanks again for spotting the difference, Yeah, that's fine. I haven't even had a chance to find out if last night's testing passed... :$ --D > -Eric > > > Brian