On Tue, 2005-Apr-05 22:59:08 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >There are two ways that a filesystem correctly could handle a R/O >media: > >1. Fail with EROFS unless asked t mouned read-only Note that EROFS is not a documented return code for [n]mount(2). This is probably a bug. >2. Silently downgrade th emount to read-only. >I personally prefer the first because that way a script does not >have to check if it got the mount it wanted or not. I agree that [n]mount(2) should fail with EROFS. There are benefits in having mount(8) detect this case and retry the mount - it makes mount(8) more intuitive for interactive use. It's a pity there isn't provision for a "partially successful" exit code - then mount(8) could both perform a read-only mount and any scripts could check that they got the mount they expected. PeterReceived on Wed Apr 06 2005 - 05:12:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:31 UTC