On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:57:27PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> Right now we return EINVAL if a process does not have permission to dedupe a
> file. This was an oversight on my part. EPERM gives a true description of
> the nature of our error, and EINVAL is already used for the case that the
> filesystem does not support dedupe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@xxxxxxx>
Looks ok what with all the okays after I squawked last time,
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
--D
> ---
> fs/read_write.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
> index cbea4ce58ad1..2238928ca819 100644
> --- a/fs/read_write.c
> +++ b/fs/read_write.c
> @@ -2050,7 +2050,7 @@ int vfs_dedupe_file_range(struct file *file, struct file_dedupe_range *same)
> if (info->reserved) {
> info->status = -EINVAL;
> } else if (!allow_file_dedupe(dst_file)) {
> - info->status = -EINVAL;
> + info->status = -EPERM;
> } else if (file->f_path.mnt != dst_file->f_path.mnt) {
> info->status = -EXDEV;
> } else if (S_ISDIR(dst->i_mode)) {
> --
> 2.15.1
>
