Hi Ben, On 12/12 2013 03:36 AM, Ben Myers wrote: > 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. I agree to Eric as well since either errno cannot indicate this situation much cleaner. I also can not find an existing errno could be used for this situation, maybe someday there would have a particular errno to be used in this case if users complain about it. Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
