Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-ia0-f179.google.com ([209.85.210.179]:56053 "EHLO mail-ia0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754255Ab3CKS7R (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:59:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130311143507.737f2ab0@corrin.poochiereds.net> References: <1362065133-9490-1-git-send-email-piastry@etersoft.ru> <1362065133-9490-6-git-send-email-piastry@etersoft.ru> <20130311143507.737f2ab0@corrin.poochiereds.net> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:59:16 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] CIFS: Translate SHARING_VIOLATION to -ETXTBSY error code for SMB2 From: Pavel Shilovsky To: Jeff Layton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org, sprabhu@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2013/3/11 Jeff Layton : > On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:25:31 +0400 > Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > >> to make it match CIFS and VFS variants. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Shilovsky >> --- >> fs/cifs/smb2maperror.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/cifs/smb2maperror.c b/fs/cifs/smb2maperror.c >> index 494c912..11e589e 100644 >> --- a/fs/cifs/smb2maperror.c >> +++ b/fs/cifs/smb2maperror.c >> @@ -356,7 +356,7 @@ static const struct status_to_posix_error smb2_error_map_table[] = { >> {STATUS_PORT_CONNECTION_REFUSED, -ECONNREFUSED, >> "STATUS_PORT_CONNECTION_REFUSED"}, >> {STATUS_INVALID_PORT_HANDLE, -EIO, "STATUS_INVALID_PORT_HANDLE"}, >> - {STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION, -EBUSY, "STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION"}, >> + {STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION, -ETXTBSY, "STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION"}, >> {STATUS_QUOTA_EXCEEDED, -EDQUOT, "STATUS_QUOTA_EXCEEDED"}, >> {STATUS_INVALID_PAGE_PROTECTION, -EIO, >> "STATUS_INVALID_PAGE_PROTECTION"}, > > Actually, I think Sachin is converting the CIFS > STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION to translate to EBUSY, since that seems to > better reflect the situation. I'd suggest dropping this patch, unless > you have a specific need for this error return here. Yes, I am ok to drop this patch - accoring to the previous discussion in linux-cifs@ it is no suitable. -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky.