On 05/18/2012 09:01 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 08:08:08PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>> @@ -1303,6 +1303,13 @@ static noinline int btrfs_ioctl_resize(struct btrfs_root *root,
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>> goto out_free;
>> }
>> + if (device->fs_devices && device->fs_devices->seeding) {
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "btrfs: resizer unable to apply on "
>> + "seeding device %s\n", device->name);
>> + ret = -EACCES;
>
> I think EINVAL would be more appropriate. EACCESS is about permissions
> which do not make much sense in context of resizing devices, besides
> that CAP_SYS_ADMIN is required anyway (and checked a few lines above).
>
That's true, I'll follow your advice.
CAP_SYS_ADMIN has already been there. :)
And thanks for reviewing this.
thanks,
liubo
>
> david
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
