Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:22:36 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: retasting devices on demand Message-ID: <62576.1156310556@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:24:41 EST." <44EBAE59.7040003@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <44EBAE59.7040003@centtech.com>, Eric Anderson writes: >On 08/22/06 18:48, Roman Kurakin wrote: >> "Busy" more appropriate. > ># true > /dev/ad0 >-su: /dev/ad0: Operation not permitted > >I agree though, that EBUSY is better. Semantically it is not a EBUSY situation because it is within the control of whatever code opened the disk first to decide if you will be allowed to write to it or not. Shared writes _are_ possible, I just don't think we have any code which allows it yet. That's why it is EPERM and not EBUSY -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?62576.1156310556>