On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 20:02:18 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote: > > I think futimens(2) and close(2) failures are exotic enough to warrant > > printing the system call name. > > > > I don't understand this. Can you give an example of an error message that > touch currently might emit where knowing that the failed call was > futimens() or close() would affect the analysis of how to deal with it? I > mean, it looks like the only errors that futimens() could really return are > EROFS, EIO, and EPERM (implies a race by different users to create the > file), and close() could only return EIO. For any of those errors, you're > going to handle them the same whether they're from open, futimens, or > close, no?
I agree. The actual syscall in this case is pretty much irrelevant. The mostly likely failure is due to an I/O error of some kind. - todd
