From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] vfs: make unlink() return ENOENT in preference to
 EROFS
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 23:30:30 +0100
Message-ID: <20110606223030.GN11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <BANLkTimX_R8-mT4PqAhqwvCPm_-bcDFqVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1307393893-28672-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	lacombar@gmail.com
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1307393893-28672-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

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).