From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BFE7CA7 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:14:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6736304032 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 06:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Cr8RkBWhfox4DiSb (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 06:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 21:14:27 +0800 From: Zorro Lang Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_quota: fall back silently if XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA fails Message-ID: <20160802131427.GD16413@zlang.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1470120540-15135-1-git-send-email-zlang@redhat.com> <20160802122721.GE31492@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160802122721.GE31492@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: sandeen@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 05:27:21AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:49:00PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > After XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA feature has been merged into linux kernel and > > xfsprogs, xfs_quota use Q_XGETNEXTQUOTA for report and dump, and > > fall back to old XFS_GETQUOTA ioctl if XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA fails. > > > > But when XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA fails, xfs_quota print a warning as > > "XFS_GETQUOTA: Invalid argument". That's due to kernel can't > > recognize XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA ioctl and return EINVAL. At this time, > > the warning is helpless, xfs_quota just need to fall back. > > We'd still want to report other errors, right? Yes. This patch will make xfs_quota's report and dump command report nothing if XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA fails and falls back to XFS_GETQUOTA. But if XFS_GETQUOTA fails, it'll report errors. As I mentioned in email, we don't report errors if XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA fails, or we don't report errors if kernel has no XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA feature? The first one won't report any errors from XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA call, include kernel has no this feature. So: "cmd == XFS_GETQUOTA" or "!(cmd == XFS_GETNEXTQUOTA && errno == EINVAL)" I think they all make sense. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, Zorro > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs