On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:02:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:29:19 +0200 Philippe De Muyter <phdm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 12:46:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:20:58 +0200 Philippe De Muyter <phdm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Currently, the initial mount of the root file system by the linux > > > > kernel fails with a cryptic message instead of being retried with > > > > the MS_RDONLY flag set, when the device is read-only and the > > > > combination of block driver and filesystem driver yields EROFS. > > > > > > > > I do not know if POSIX mandates that mount(2) must fail with EACCES, nor > > > > if linux aims to strict compliance with POSIX on that point. Consensus > > > > amongst the messages that I have read so far seems to show that linux > > > > kernel hackers feel that EROFS is a more appropriate error code than > > > > EACCES in that case. > > > > > > Isn't the core problem that "the combination of block driver and > > > filesystem driver yields EROFS"? That the fs should instead be > > > returning EACCESS in this case? > > > > Does POSIX or Linux mandate that it should ? > > For info, SCO Unix documents that mount(2) may fail with EROFS : and adds "mount is not part of any currently supported standard" http://osr507doc.sco.com/en/man/html.S/mount.S.html Philippe -- 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
