From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 08:24:54 +0100
Subject: [LTP] LTP: mount02 was expected EINVAL(22) but got ENOENT(2):
 No such file or directory
In-Reply-To: <5CB823D9.8050902@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <CA+G9fYudJC07HfrU1fVptCEvgCuBsF9G2N76PiGG5Z258z0Dzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <226607771.7950393.1552490962324.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
 <CA+G9fYsDK=4jJ31qeTpOxif+j7dTijznsboMHRdkfhQ3V0+8tA@mail.gmail.com>
 <696858120.8161208.1552551805566.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
 <5CB823D9.8050902@cn.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <20190418072454.GD2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:14:33PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:

> Does you or Al Viro plan to replace ENOENT with ENOTBLK recently?
> It seems that ENOENT still exists on v5.1-rc5.

I am; I'm sorting the next pile of mount patches at the moment,
and fix for that is going to be in the very beginning.