Re: [PATCH] vfs: missing inode operation should return a consistent error code

On 2026-06-17 15:24 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 10:31:12PM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote:
> > @Christian, since you suggested equalizing the error codes for missing
> > inode ops, what is your opinion?
> > 
> > > Op 01-06-2026 18:50 CEST schreef Jan Kara <[email protected]>:
> > > 
> > > We certainly can (and sometimes do) modify the returned errors. It is
> > > always just a balancing act between the benefit of the change and chances
> > > somebody will get broken by it. In this case I don't quite see the
> > > benefit, not that I'd be too worried about the a regression but there's
> > > always the chance...
> > > 
> > > 								Honza
> > 
> > No, I get that, and maybe you are right. I feel in this case it would be
> > really odd if this breaks anyone's application. It would mean you are
> > rigorously testing for receiving specific error codes, without handling
> > a general error case. That just seems odd, especially since some of these
> > error codes are not even listed as a possibility for missing ops (like EACCES).
> > I would say we change this and revert if anyone complains. I believe that was
> > also Christian's view in another thread, but I may be mistaken.
> 
> It's a general stance, yes. I think trying to make the things we
> maintain more consistent is worth risking someone reporting a
> regression.

I'm still mulling this patch btw. And I'm leaning more towards trying
this...