From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id qARMH1bP098129 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:17:01 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 3yYQBH6XJni42lEY (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:19:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:19:16 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test EROFS vs. EEXIST when creating on an RO filesystem Message-ID: <20121127221916.GA18665@infradead.org> References: <50B52DB7.3030506@redhat.com> <20121127221111.GA13753@infradead.org> <50B53AEA.3080102@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50B53AEA.3080102@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs-oss On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 04:12:58PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > No single filesystem, really - > > I temporarily broke the VFS in a rhel backport. ;) But it seems like > the kind of thing that could be missed in the future, so figured it was > worth a quick test. That's what I wonder about, I was pretty sure we'd normmally do these checks in the VFS, and I haven't seen any reason changes from you in the area. I'm fine with adding this test, btw. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs