From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 23 05:22:40 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B93316A4DF
	for <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C049E43D4C
	for <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:22:39 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9837170C5;
	Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:22:37 +0000 (UTC)
To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:24:41 EST."
	<44EBAE59.7040003@centtech.com> 
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:22:36 +0000
Message-ID: <62576.1156310556@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Roman Kurakin <rik@inse.ru>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: retasting devices on demand 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations
	<freebsd-geom.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-geom>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:22:40 -0000

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.