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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
