Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:44:30 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "supporter:XFS FILESYSTEM" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
        "open list:GFS2 FILE SYSTEM" <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: return EPERM on immutable inode
Message-ID: <20160405204430.GG11238@dastard>
References: <1459862890-22957-1-git-send-email-guaneryu@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1459862890-22957-1-git-send-email-guaneryu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 651
Lines: 21

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 09:28:10PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote:
> In most cases, EPERM is returned on immutable inode, and there're only
> a few places returning EACCES. And EPERM looks more reasonable to me.
> 
> So converting all EACCES to EPERM on immutable inode.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> I noticed this when running LTP on overlayfs, setxattr03 failed due to
> unexpected EACCES on immutable inode.

This should be in the commit message itself, rather than "EPERM
looks more reasonable".

Other than that, change seems fine to me.

Acked-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com