[PATCH] fs: inode: return proper errno on bmap()

[PATCH] fs: inode: return proper errno on bmap()

[Leesoo Ahn]

It better returns -EOPNOTSUPP instead of -EINVAL which has meaning of
the argument is an inappropriate value. It doesn't make sense in the
case of that a file system doesn't support bmap operation.

-EINVAL could make confusion in the userspace perspective.

Signed-off-by: Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@wewakecorp.com>
---
 fs/inode.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index 8fefb69e1f84..c13cac26f08d 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -1837,7 +1837,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(iput);
 int bmap(struct inode *inode, sector_t *block)
 {
 	if (!inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap)
-		return -EINVAL;
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
 
 	*block = inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap(inode->i_mapping, *block);
 	return 0;
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] fs: inode: return proper errno on bmap()

[Leesoo Ahn]

2023-07-15 오후 3:39에 Markus Elfring 이(가) 쓴 글:
>  > It better returns -EOPNOTSUPP instead of -EINVAL which has meaning of
>  > the argument is an inappropriate value. It doesn't make sense in the
>  > case of that a file system doesn't support bmap operation.
>  >
>  > -EINVAL could make confusion in the userspace perspective.
> 
> Are imperative change descriptions still preferred?
> 
> See also:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.5-rc1#n94
> 
> 
> How do you think about to use a subject like “[PATCH v2] fs: inode:
> Return proper error code in bmap()”?
> 
> 
> Please reconsider also the distribution of addresses in recipient lists.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230715060217.1469690-1-lsahn@wewakecorp.com/
> 
> Regards,
> Markus

Thank you for the feedback.
I will post v2 patch soon

best regards,
Leesoo