Right now we return EINVAL if a process does not have permission to dedupe a
file. This was an oversight on my part. EPERM gives a true description of
the nature of our error, and EINVAL is already used for the case that the
filesystem does not support dedupe.
Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfas...@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com>
Acked-by: David Sterba <dste...@suse.com>
---
fs/read_write.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
index 71e9077f8bc1..7188982e2733 100644
--- a/fs/read_write.c
+++ b/fs/read_write.c
@@ -2050,7 +2050,7 @@ int vfs_dedupe_file_range(struct file *file, struct
file_dedupe_range *same)
if (info->reserved) {
info->status = -EINVAL;
} else if (!allow_file_dedupe(dst_file)) {
- info->status = -EINVAL;
+ info->status = -EPERM;
} else if (file->f_path.mnt != dst_file->f_path.mnt) {
info->status = -EXDEV;
} else if (S_ISDIR(dst->i_mode)) {
--
2.15.1
--
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
