From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id qARMAmDL097004 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:10:48 -0600 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id OZWyDoBUeevsU5Ud for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:13:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50B53AEA.3080102@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 16:12:58 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: test EROFS vs. EEXIST when creating on an RO filesystem References: <50B52DB7.3030506@redhat.com> <20121127221111.GA13753@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20121127221111.GA13753@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs-oss On 11/27/12 4:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:16:39PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> TBH, I don't know if this is posix-specified, but I found out the >> hard way that when trying to re-create existing files on a readonly >> filesystem, some apps expect/handle EEXIST, but fail on EROFS. >> >> This will test mkdir, mknod, and symlinks for that behavior. > > Just curious, which filesystem would fail this currently or did in the > past? 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. (basically this was from moving mnt_want_write outside i_mutex for freeze work, and returning an error directly from mnt_want_write() would give us EROFS instead of maybe EEXIST) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs