On 02/15/2011 05:12 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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? Well, I am also not sure about that. But the problem is that read-write open fails now while it worked before. (TBH I have no idea when that EROFS fallback worked - because the code opened device RW, issued EROGET ioctl and set read-only... for years.) Anyway I think EROFS is used on block devices, just grep kernel source. Milan -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
