On 08/01/2023 00:51, Sam James wrote:
On 7 Jan 2023, at 16:25, Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> 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
