Iain Hibbert wrote: 
>>The difference is, our page really does say ENOSPC can't happen, and
>>we don't mean it. We should change the page.
> 
> While technically that may be correct, if you look at intro(2) it says
> 
>      The manual page for each system call will list some of the common errno
>      codes that system call can return, but that should not be considered an
>      exhaustive list, ...  Docu-
>      menting all the error codes that a system call can return in a more spec-
>      ification-like manner would take more resources than this project has
>      available.

That's all very well as far as it goes; what I meant was that we ought
to change the language in truncate(2) from "truncate() succeeds unless"
(which is a direct contradiction of the language you cite from intro(2))
to something more like SUS's "truncate() fails if", which would be
perfectly consonant with the intro(2) language.

-Chap