Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Thu Sep 3 19:06:41 UTC 2015

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 03:02:07PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> Yeah, for a given share connection (i.e. connected vfs stack).
> > ENOTSUP implies there may be another fd or whatever where
> > it could work.
> > Given that we support multiple VFS modules, it is hard for me to see
> > many cases where we'd return ENOSYS in reality.
> > 
> > Now, I do consider this an ABI change, and one which may break modules
> > not in tree.  (Will?)
> > 
> > I'd really like feedback on this before I start looking at how to fix
> > it.  ENOTSUP is a proposed errno for this situation.  If people have
> > other ideas, I'm all ears.
> I think this line of thoughts sounds like a reasonable set of
> changes. And if this is how to fix some problems, and this
> requires a VFS (ABI) change, then so be it. But that's just me.
> ;-)

I think returning ENOTSUP in this case is a reasonable change.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list