Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:12:08 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Panic on mount with write-locked USB media (umass) Message-ID: <20050406071208.GA87505@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <2871.1112734748@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20050405201820.042685D07@ptavv.es.net> <2871.1112734748@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050406071208.GA87505>