Hi, On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 17:39 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 05:16:19PM -0400, Peter Staubach wrote: > > First, there is already some support to disable leases for NFS mounted > > file systems in -mm, I think. > > Oops, sorry; my fault for not checking -mm before sending.... > > > Are you planning on removing it? > > I'd rather do that, yes. Any objection? > > > Second, it seems to me that EINVAL would be a better error to return > > than EOPNOTSUPP. This is an invalid operation to apply to this file > > and might match POSIX style specs better. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "might match POSIX style specs better"? > > From a quick check, other reasons we'd get EINVAL in this case: > > - attempt to get a lease on something other than a regular file. > - leases disabled with /proc/sys/fs/leases-enable > > So if the application calling fcntl knows it was calling it on a regular > file, then with your proposal an EINVAL return would mean leases were > disabled for one reason or another, and it could take that as a sign to > fall back on some other behavior. And I can't see any reason it would > need to distinguish between those two remaining cases (filesystem > doesn't support leases, or leases are disabled by the sysctl). So, > OK, EINVAL sounds fine to me. > > But I don't have a really strong opinion. I think the suggestion of > EOPNOTSUPP was from Steven Whitehouse; Steven, do you care? > > --b. EINVAL is fine by me, just so long as its not EAGAIN then it gets my blessing :-) Steve. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
