Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFD] What error should FS return when I/O failure occurs? | From | fs <> | Date | Tue, 17 May 2005 12:47:26 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 13:58, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> You'd be better off pointing out that 'man 2 write' lists the errors that > might be returned as: EBAF, EINVAL, EFAULT, EFBIG, EPIPE, EAGAIN, EINTR, > ENOSPC, and EIO. > > Does the POSIX spec allow write() to return -EROFS? If there is POSIX spec about this issue, I won't post this RFD. > What happens if you're writing to an NFS-mounted file system, and the remote > system remounts the disk R/O? What is reported in that case? So, it's necessary to define the right error in this case. Each FS will follow this standard, give the defined error; User can follow this standard, without caring what FS they're using.
> > The purpose of this RFD, is to get the community to understand, > > all I/O related syscalls should return VFS error, not FS error. > > All fine and good, until you hit a case like ext3 where reporting > the FS error code will better explain the *real* problem than forcing > it to fit into one of the provided VFS errors.
So, if linux supports a new FS, which returns another error, does that mean the app should be rewritten to include the new error? There should be some standards constraint this behavour.
> > User mode app should not care about the FS they are using. > > So, the community should define the ONLY VFS error first. > > I think that's been done, and the VFS behavior is "if the FS reports > an error we pass it up to userspace".
Then,from userspace, V (of VFS) loses its meaning, because the error is FS-related, not FS-unrelated.
regards, ---- Qu Fuping
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |