Subject: Re: bug#60455: Missing fallback if copy_file_range returns ENOENT?

From: Pádraig Brady <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2023 13:45:40 +0000

On 08/01/2023 00:51, Sam James wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 7 Jan 2023, at 16:25, Pádraig Brady <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> OK it's probably worth handling in coreutils then.
>> Note I still get the feeling this is a race in CIFS
>> that is only being made more apparent with copy_file_range(),
>> but fair enough that this is a regressions for users and
>> we should be able to cater for it easy enough.

Or more precisely, ENOENT will be unusual for fd operations,
and so falling back to a standard copy should just be
restricted to this or similar cases.

If this was seen on a single CIFS mount it may be
less appropriate as then the user may not want to
fall back to a client side copy, when a server side should work.
But in this separate mount case, the fallback is appropriate.
I guess we could restrict to separate device IDs,
but that's probably getting too complicated for this.

> Total agreement. Thanks, looks good!

Pushed.
Marking this as done.

cheers,
Pádraig