Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757446Ab1FFWaf (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:30:35 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:53972 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751912Ab1FFWae (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:30:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 23:30:30 +0100 From: Al Viro To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lacombar@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] vfs: make unlink() return ENOENT in preference to EROFS Message-ID: <20110606223030.GN11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1307393893-28672-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1307393893-28672-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 829 Lines: 17 On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:58:13PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > If user space attempts to unlink a non-existent file, and the file > system is mounted read-only, return ENOENT instead of EROFS. Either > error code is arguably valid/correct, but ENOENT is a more specific > error message. Umm... I can live with that. What about rmdir(2)? We have similar situation there as well. If we care about one, why not the other? Mind you, I'm not at all convinced that it matters enough to bother, but yes, ENOENT is a bit more specific (and likelier to be handled by luserland code). -- 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/