[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D5AAB8F.50901@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:36:31 +0100
From: Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tao Ma <tm@....ma>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH][RFC] dm: Do not open log and cow device read-write
for read-only mappings
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists