On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 05:30:38PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/22/20 8:13 AM, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> > @@ -350,8 +365,15 @@ quotaoff(
> > return;
> > }
> > dir = mount->fs_name;
> > - if (xfsquotactl(XFS_QUOTAOFF, dir, type, 0, (void *)&qflags) < 0)
> > - perror("XFS_QUOTAOFF");
> > + if (xfsquotactl(XFS_QUOTAOFF, dir, type, 0, (void *)&qflags) < 0) {
> > + if (errno == EEXIST)
> > + fprintf(stderr, _("Quota already off.\n"));
> > + else if (errno == EINVAL)
> > + fprintf(stderr,
> > + _("Can't disable when quotas are off.\n"));
>
> Is this the right message here? We get here from off_f(), which disables
> enforcement and accounting, so I'm not sure "can't disable" makes sense
> if "disable" means "disable enforcement" as it did in disable_enforcement()...?
>
> (IOWs, have can you provoke EINVAL? How? Sorry, this just kind of jumps out
> at me because "can't disable" seems a little out of place in quotaoff() so
> I want to double check.)
You're right. It was a copy/paste from the disable case. You also have a good point
in that I don't think EINVAL is ever provoked for the OFF case. I'll recheck it.
Thanks-
Bill
>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
