From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: fs Subject: Re: [RFD] What error should FS return when I/O failure occurs? Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:41:03 -0400 Message-ID: <1116358863.2428.123.camel@CoolQ> References: <1116263665.2434.69.camel@CoolQ> <200505161758.j4GHw4EW009866@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1116348446.2428.38.camel@CoolQ> <200505171057.10540.vda@ilport.com.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel , Kenichi Okuyama Return-path: Received: from ercist.iscas.ac.cn ([159.226.5.94]:35854 "EHLO ercist.iscas.ac.cn") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261326AbVEQIdb (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2005 04:33:31 -0400 To: Denis Vlasenko In-Reply-To: <200505171057.10540.vda@ilport.com.ua> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 03:57, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > On Tuesday 17 May 2005 19:47, fs wrote: > I think you want too much from fs developers. Use this: > > if(error) > if(errno==...) {...} > else if(errno==...) {...} > else {...} <------------ handle any other errors > > and be happy. For users, the OS is a black box, it provides services of FS. The OS should hide differences of each FS, so usermode app can run happily on every FS. For the same reason, OS should return the same error, no matter what FS it comes from. Users only care about the interface, not the implementation. So, OS should _AT LEAST_ make the interface clear(here means the syscall should return a definite error) > -- > vda > regards, ---- Qu Fuping