On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:04:04 EDT, fs said: > The point is(from the user's perspective, not FS developer's): > If you open a file with O_RDWR, and sys_open returns success, > next, call sys_write, but returns EROFS? The two return values are > paradox/self-contradictory. You'd be better off pointing out that 'man 2 write' lists the errors that might be returned as: EBAF, EINVAL, EFAULT, EFBIG, EPIPE, EAGAIN, EINTR, ENOSPC, and EIO. Does the POSIX spec allow write() to return -EROFS? What happens if you're writing to an NFS-mounted file system, and the remote system remounts the disk R/O? What is reported in that case? > The purpose of this RFD, is to get the community to understand, > all I/O related syscalls should return VFS error, not FS error. All fine and good, until you hit a case like ext3 where reporting the FS error code will better explain the *real* problem than forcing it to fit into one of the provided VFS errors. > User mode app should not care about the FS they are using. > So, the community should define the ONLY VFS error first. I think that's been done, and the VFS behavior is "if the FS reports an error we pass it up to userspace".
Attachment:
pgp5YCv62Ljub.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: ioctl entries for joystick in compat_ioctl.h
- Next by Date: Re: I'm having 4GB RAM, but Linux sees just 3GB???
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFD] What error should FS return when I/O failure occurs?
- Next by thread: Re: [RFD] What error should FS return when I/O failure occurs?
- Index(es):
 |