Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:11:48 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, peter@netplex.com.au Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG, dt@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/msdosfs msdosfs_vnops.c Message-ID: <199806101411.AAA24703@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Chflags doesn't have so much history beind not returning EOPNOTSUPP, but >> EOPNOTSUPP is not mentioned in chflags.2 and EINVAL is documented as the >> error for fchflags() on a socket. > >EOPNOTSUPP is what is returned by the "other" BSD's. I feel that there is >a difference between giving a nonsense (invalid) argument, and the flags >case where the backing fs can't support the valid request you've made. For variant fs's, each fs gets to decide which requests are valid, so there is no difference. EOPNOTSUPP means that the fs doesn't even know how to decide. For flags, all fs's should support null changes (to whatever default they return in struct stat) so that all utilities that use chflags() don't have to avoid calling it for null changes. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806101411.AAA24703>