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

[Jori Koolstra]

@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 <jack@xxxxxxx>:
> 
> 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.

But regardless, it's just a nice to have, and I can definitely live without.
It is just a clean-up I came across while working on O_CREAT|O_DIRECTORY.

Best,
Jori.