On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 07:37:27AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 07:19:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 08:30:22PM +0800, Julian Sun wrote: > > > Keep it consistent with the handling of the same check within > > > generic_copy_file_checks(). > > > Also, returning -EOVERFLOW in this case is more appropriate. > > > > Maybe: > > > > Keep the errno value consistent with the equivalent check in > > generic_copy_file_checks() that returns -EOVERFLOW, which feels like the > > more appropriate value to return compared to the overly generic -EINVAL. > > The manpage for clone/dedupe/exchange don't say anything about > EOVERFLOW, but they do have this to say about EINVAL: > > EINVAL > The filesystem does not support reflinking the ranges of the given > files. Which isn't exactly the integer overflow case described here :) > Does this errno code change cause any regressions in fstests? Given our rather sparse test coverage of it I doubt it, but it would be great to have that confirmed by the submitter. While we're talking about that - a simple exerciser for the overflow condition for xfstests would be very useful to have.
