On 04/09/2010 10:58 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Can I suggest to return -EINVAL instead of -EPERM ?
To me EPERM seems that the user don't have the right to perform an action. But
the problem is that "rm" is not the right command to use in order to delete a
subvolume.
As side note, what is the reason for which an user is able to create a
subvolume, but not to destroy it ?
BR
Goffredo
We can decide on that, but let me explaing in more detail.
From what i understood is that since when you are not allowed to delete
the volume or a snapshot by "rmdir" (conventional means). Then it is
perfectly safe to call it EPERM as it would be as if suggesting
"pathname" doesn't support removal of directories.
EINVAL is a for other needs which i feel is not suitable in the current
case.
There is another scenario of what if btrfs_rmdir itself can call subvol
removal ioctl for snapshots and subvolumes in case someone issues a
rmdir on such directories.
Suggestions please.
Regards
--
Harshavardhana
http://www.gluster.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
