On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:34:23PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Fri, 07 Feb 2025, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 03:53:52PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > Do you think there could be a problem with changing the error returned > > > in this circumstance? i.e. if you try to destroy a subvolume with a > > > non-existant name on a different filesystem could getting -ENOENT > > > instead of -EXDEV be noticed? > > > > -EXDEV is the standard error code for "we're crossing a filesystem > > boundary and we can't or aren't supposed to be", so no, let's not change > > that. > > > > OK. As bcachefs is the only user of user_path_locked_at() it shouldn't > be too hard. Hang on, why does that require keeping user_path_locked_at()? Just compare i_sb...
