Messages in this thread | | | From | Jeff Layton <> | Date | Fri, 5 Sep 2014 07:48:27 -0400 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 01/17] locks: consolidate "nolease" routines |
| |
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:12:00 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > Actually, it looks as if when you compile with !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING, > > then fcntl_setlease() returns the value '0' (which would be > > "success!"). The word "confusing" only begins to describe it all. > > That's incorrect for sure, we should agree on a single sensible code > for: > > 1) !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING > 2) !lease_enable > 3) filesystem doesn't support leases. >
Agreed. I think -ENOLCK is really better than -EINVAL.
I usually take -EINVAL to mean "you sent me something bogus". Whereas -ENOLCK just says "locking doesn't work". -ENOLCK seems closer to the situation in all 3 cases above.
That said, this is a user-visible change. The main userland consumer of leases (AFAIK) is samba, so I'll take a peek at that code and run it by them before merging anything.
-- Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com>
| |