Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755171Ab1BOQNN (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:13:13 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:61501 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753171Ab1BOQNJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:13:09 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=MGB9FCmKEe2MALXcr1xo7iKWpYyO8XNudxECeC5ceZacVIPhrtlybGPCeKC94AwJwf B/dlbyhADxmqB92SASwFc2ZpvtGHFJJz9OXTjd71wyNiH8QUKL4p9uYQ0iipFFy5+iu0 iFxqkFvdt8Qd3Bb3laGF3ieYhB6wZDtc31YB8= Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:12:28 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Milan Broz Cc: Alasdair G Kergon , device-mapper development , Jens Axboe , Tao Ma , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] dm: Do not open log and cow device read-write for read-only mappings Message-ID: <20110215161228.GN3160@htj.dyndns.org> References: <4D5A6EF4.3030905@redhat.com> <20110215124629.GF5825@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <20110215152033.GK3160@htj.dyndns.org> <20110215154625.GG5825@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <20110215155018.GM3160@htj.dyndns.org> <4D5AA45C.7050600@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D5AA45C.7050600@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1023 Lines: 23 On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:05:48PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: > On 02/15/2011 04:50 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > >> That's why I'm arguing EACCES is not a good error to return and EROFS is > >> more appropriate. > > > > Frankly, I don't really mind one way or the other but EROFS isn't > > usually used in those areas. It might make sense for this use case > > and then there will be cases it just feels awkward. This being a dm > > thing, wouldn't it be just better to let dm massage the return value? > > It is not DM thing. That code was checking for generic block device. > No DM there (it was from cryptsetup code but not related to DM part). Hmmm... I'm confused now. Where was that -EROFS from then? I don't recall changing -EROFS to -EACCES. What did I miss? -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/