Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752605AbaG0Tur (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:50:47 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:55094 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752237AbaG0Tup (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:50:45 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:50:41 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Utkin , Linux Kernel mailing list , Linux NFS Mailing List , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs3_list_one_acl(): check get_acl() result with IS_ERR_OR_NULL Message-ID: <20140727195041.GA11575@infradead.org> References: <1406375881-18837-1-git-send-email-andrey.krieger.utkin@gmail.com> <20140727131917.GA32153@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:13:50AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Why are we not passing the error code back to the caller here in the > case where we have one? One of the main purposes of returning an error > in get_acl() is to ensure that we pass -EOPNOTSUPP if the operation > fails due to lack of server support. Do we really want to return EOPNOTSUPP from listxattr? Seems like simply not listing anything if the server doesn't support ACLs would be the usual behaviour. E.g. on local filesystems we'll also just get back an empty list of xattrs if ACLs aren't supported and not other attribute is set. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/