From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Subject: Re: unlink(nonexistent): EROFS or ENOENT?
Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 20:14:50 +0400
Message-ID: <4DE270FA.6060702@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
References: <4DE26F97.9050607@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
To: Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4DE26F97.9050607@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

29.05.2011 20:08, Michael Tokarev =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
> Hello.
>=20
> Just noticed that at least on ext4, unlinking a
> non-existing file from a read-only filesystem
> results in EROFS instead of ENOENT.  I'd expect
> it return ENOENT - it is more logical, at least
> in my opinion.

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/unlink.html
this case is quite clear:

 [EROFS]
    The directory entry to be unlinked
    is part of a read-only file system

Ie, the entry is a _part_ of a file system, so it should be
_existing_ entry to start with.

> For one, (readonly) NFS mount returns ENOENT in
> this case.
>=20
> Thanks!

/mjt