On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 01:02:14PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 03:03:45PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:16:50PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > As a followup to the fallocate discussion I checked what we map ENODEV > > > to in nfsd. Turns out we map it to NFSERR_NODEV, which doesn't exist > > > in eiter NFSv4.0 nor NFSv4.1 despite the comment in > > > include/uapi/linux/nfs.h claiming otherwise. > > > > That's interesting. Is there a reasonable alternative, or is this a > > protocol bug? > > I still haven't figured this out. RFC1813 mentions NFS3ERR_NODEV, but > doesn't actually reference it anywhere. > > In general it seems to me like the use of ENODEV in fallocate is the > bug, as we don't really return it from any other filesystem operation. > > > > I also just ran into another issue where nfserrno translates a large > > > lits of errors into NFSERR_JUKEBOX, but for v4 we'd really want > > > NFSERR_DELAY instead for most of them. > > > > The distinction is academic as they're both 10008. > > Oh, right. I missed to spot that. > > > > Is it time for a version specific errno mapping? > > > > I'm certainly not opposed if it turns out to be necessary. > > A start might be to move nfserrno out of the NFSv2-specific nfsproc > file.. The current location's a little confusing. But I don't have strong feelings about it. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
