On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:22:52AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:57:45AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > Errrgh, the golden output of this test reflects the changes to the input > > > > checking in Anna/Peng's copy_file_range/clone_file_range patches. > > > > > > > > So, I guess the question is, should I reset the golden output to whatever > > > > btrfs spits out before that patchset, and we'll consider the alterations > > > > to be bugs/regressions/whatever that ought to be fixed in their patches? > > > > > > Some bits in btrfs don't seem kosher. But it would be good to > > > explicitly send patches for btrfs to adopt to what might make more > > > sense, and then follow it in the other implementations. > > > > Btrfs does check for directories, but we should really be checking for > > regular files too. In the end, we only copy extents that would > > correspond with regular files, so we're sneaking by. > > Yes, I saw that. So so far I'd suggest something like the following > for btrfs: > > - return EBADFD for missing read/wite permissions Why not -EPERM? I don't have strong feelings about picking errnos, as long as we're consistent, I'm not worried. > - return EINVAL for wrong non-directory file types as the > source fd Ack. -chris _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
