Re: commit d7afaec0b564f0609e116f5: fuse: add FUSE_NO_OPEN_SUPPORT flag to INIT

From	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: commit d7afaec0b564f0609e116f5: fuse: add FUSE_NO_OPEN_SUPPORT flag to INIT
Date	2016-11-15 14:40 +0100
Message-ID	<sDM7T-5vB-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <sCc6t-82o-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <sCfH3-1Zq-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sCmSd-6F5-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sCnlf-6OQ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <sCnOh-7dZ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> wrote:

> Yeah, I'd expect most people to do that. But FUSE file systems are often
> a little more exotic and produce error conditions that don't match well
> with any of the codes documented in the manpages. If there is no good
> fit, I'd expect that most people would (as I have done so far) simply
> pick something more appropriate from errno(3). If some of these codes
> are forbidden (or only a subset allowed) I'd really like to document
> this. It's not reasonable to expect every libfuse user to start browsing
> the Linux VFS code to determine if they can use a particular error code.

The library and the kernel checks for -1000 < error <= 0.  There are
no other checks done by fuse.  However returning ENOSYS for open is
simply wrong, it's definitely not something a sane filesystem would
ever do.

Thanks,
Miklos

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: commit d7afaec0b564f0609e116f5: fuse: add FUSE_NO_OPEN_SUPPORT  flag to INIT Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> - 2016-11-15 14:40 +0100
  Re: commit d7afaec0b564f0609e116f5: fuse: add FUSE_NO_OPEN_SUPPORT flag to INIT Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2016-11-15 17:00 +0100

csiph-web