07.06.2011 02:30, Al Viro wrote: > 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? I think both should be fixed. > 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). The problem which triggered the initial thread and Ted's patch was me trying to commit some changes from read-only /etc into git tree. This works for everything but deletes, since `git rm' barfs when unlink for a non-existing file returns EROFS. rm(1) has been patched especially for this case at about kernel 2.6.32 time, as shown in comments at http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/remove.c#n450 , but git has not (yet), and I suspect git isn't the only leftover, there are other applications to patch still, if the kernel will continue to return EROFS. Besides, POSIX says (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/unlink.html): [EROFS] The directory entry to be unlinked is part of a read-only file system so it clearly states that the entry should exists for EROFS, ie, to be _part_ of the filesystem. Thanks! /mjt -- 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
