On 5/13/20 6:00 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 04:34:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:21:29PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >>> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:45:48AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 5/8/20 8:01 AM, Brian Foster wrote: ... >>>> You're right that my patch changes these to ENOSPC. >>>> >>>>> Is the intent to change behavior such that -ENOSPC is >>>>> unconditional for project quota reservation failures? >>>> >>>> Now it's a conundrum. I /think/ the current behavior is due to an oversight, but >>>> >>>> a) I'm not certain, and >>>> b) can we change it now? >>>> >>> >>> Heh, I can't really tell what the intended/expected behavior is. For >>> whatever it's worth, it seems reasonable enough to me to change it based >>> on the fact that project quotas have been expected to return -ENOSPC in >>> at least some common cases for many years. It seems unlikely that users >>> would know or care about the change in behavior in the subset noted >>> above, but who knows. It might be good to get some other opinions. :P >> >> "I bet you a beer at the next conference (if they ever happen again) >> that nobody will notice"? :P >> > > Apocalypse aside, free beer is free beer. ;) > >> TBH while I find it a little odd that project quota gets to return >> ENOSPC instead of EDQUOT, I find it more odd that sometimes it doesn't. >> This at least gets us to consistent behavior (EDQUOT for user/group, >> ENOSPC for project) so for the series: >> > > Works for me, but can we update the commit log to describe the behavior > change before this goes in? In fact, it might even make sense to retitle > the patch to something like "xfs: always return -ENOSPC on project quota > reservation failure" and let the flag removal be a side effect of that. Yes that's a good plan. I'm also happy to just combine the 2 patches if that's better. I'll sync up w/ Darrick to see if this can still happen.e Thanks again for spotting the difference, -Eric > Brian
