On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:10:24 EDT, fs said:
> For each test case, different FS returns different result.
> From user's perspective, it's really annoying, so, there should be a
> standard which constraints the error type. Otherwise, different fs
> can return whatever they want, regardless of the user's need.
Which does the user "need":
a) an 'errno' valye that's forced to be one of a specific subset of values,
even if none of them explain what's going on
or
b) an 'errno' value that actually tells you about the error?
Remember - if the *kernel* forces a -EROFS to become a -EIO, then userspace
is stuck with that value. If the kernel passes -EROFS back to userspace,
then after glibc stashes an EROFS into errno, either glibc or the application
program can insert a 'if (errno == EROFS) {errno = EIO;}' if it feels that
EROFS is unnatural.
And in any case, that's what the *application programmer* needs. What the *user*
needs is for the file to either be safely stored, or a dialog box put up saying
that it failed....
Attachment:
pgpljr1xu2i6b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.12-rc4 1/15] (dynamic sysfs callbacks) device attribute callbacks - take 2
- Next by Date: Re: kexec?
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFD] What error should FS return when I/O failure occurs?
- Next by thread: Timestamp API ??
- Index(es):
 |