From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDED7F50 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:27:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD650AC008 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:27:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id JDj8TXEyTAPuowb7 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:27:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52A92CFF.5070600@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:26:55 +0800 From: Jeff Liu MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: return ENOSPC when trying to set more ACLs than XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES References: <52921D12.7040104@oracle.com> <5292C557.9020008@sandeen.net> <5292D8AB.5080003@oracle.com> <20131211193622.GG1935@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20131211193622.GG1935@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ben Myers Cc: Eric Sandeen , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Hi Ben, On 12/12 2013 03:36 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Jeff, > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57:15PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: >> >> On 11/25 2013 11:34 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 11/24/13, 9:36 AM, Jeff Liu wrote: >>>> From: Jie Liu >>>> >>>> We currently return EINVAL when trying to set more ACL entries than >>>> XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES(), but it would be a bit more meaningful to return >>>> ENOSPC in this situation, because the later is used to indicate there >>>> is no more space to store new ACLs IMHO. >>> >>> I'm not quite convinced that it's better; the user will get an >>> error string of "no space left on device" which is misleading too, >> I admit that both looks misleading... >>> and I'd argue that it's no better than "invalid argument." >>> >>> To me, I think it's not worth changing, but others may disagree. >>> >>> (I guess looking at ext4, it uses ENOSPC for some similar constraints, >>> so maybe three is precedent for this) >> Btrfs also uses ENOSPC, but JFS would return something like "Argument list too long" >> in this case. > > I tend to agree with Eric on this one, but if Dave or Christoph want to weigh > in that's cool. I agree to Eric as well since either errno cannot indicate this situation much cleaner. I also can not find an existing errno could be used for this situation, maybe someday there would have a particular errno to be used in this case if users complain about it. Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs