Hey Jeff, On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 12:57:15PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: > > On 11/25 2013 11:34 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 11/24/13, 9:36 AM, Jeff Liu wrote: > >> From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> We currently return EINVAL when trying to set more ACL entries than > >> XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES(), but it would be a bit more meaningful to return > >> ENOSPC in this situation, because the later is used to indicate there > >> is no more space to store new ACLs IMHO. > > > > I'm not quite convinced that it's better; the user will get an > > error string of "no space left on device" which is misleading too, > I admit that both looks misleading... > > and I'd argue that it's no better than "invalid argument." > > > > To me, I think it's not worth changing, but others may disagree. > > > > (I guess looking at ext4, it uses ENOSPC for some similar constraints, > > so maybe three is precedent for this) > Btrfs also uses ENOSPC, but JFS would return something like "Argument list too long" > in this case. I tend to agree with Eric on this one, but if Dave or Christoph want to weigh in that's cool. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
