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 -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
