Yes, this is my intention. But I am a little bit worried about breaking something that might depend on the existing behavior. So, I guess, that change would require more testing than I typically did.
On 04/08/2015 02:14, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > I would guess that ENOENT was supposed to mean some different error, but I > don't see what. I'd be open to changing this if that's your thinking. > > --matt > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Andriy Gapon <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > zfs_ioc_snapshot_list_next() converts ENOENT returned from > dmu_objset_hold(zc->zc_name) to ESRCH. > So, if zc_name names a dataset that does not exists, then to the userland > it > would instead appear as if the dataset has not snapshots. > It seems that the code behaves that way from the very start. > > I wonder what is the reason for that? > Thanks! > -- > Andriy Gapon > > -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
