Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Amit K. Arora wrote:
 + if (inode-i_op  inode-i_op-fallocate)
 + ret = inode-i_op-fallocate(inode, offset, len);
 + else
 + ret = -ENOTTY;

You can only allocate space on typewriters? ;)

J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ext4 in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Alan wrote:
 A lot of people get confused about -ENOTTY, but it is the return for
 attempting to use an ioctl on the wrong type of object, so this appears
 to be quite correct.

This is a syscall though; ENOSYS is probably a better match.

J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ext4 in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate()

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Alan wrote:
 ENOSYS indicates quite different things and ENOTTY is also used for
 syscalls. I still think ENOTTY is correct.
   
Yes, ENOSYS tends to me operation flat out not support rather than
not on this object.  I think we can do better than ENOTTY though -
ENOTSUP for example (modulo the confusion over EOPNOTSUPP).

(You can tell the patch has very little real substance if we're arguing
over errnos at this point :)

J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ext4 in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html