bug#60455: Missing fallback if copy_file_range returns ENOENT?

[Pádraig Brady]

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