linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf tool: more user-friendly errors from trace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:27:26 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
To:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:	Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tool: more user-friendly errors from trace

Em Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:18:49AM -0600, David Ahern escreveu:
> On 10/3/13 10:58 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >What about the one attached instead? It

> Isnt' strerror(errno) preferred over sys_errlist[errno]?

I found it much simpler to index the array, but can change to using
strerror_r (which I think is preferred over strerror, but one needs to
be careful as there are some subtleties there as well...).

Apart from that, do you think using errno for such simple functions is
ok? i.e. just use the mechanism in place, errno is _already_ set up and
reflects exactly what we need to get propagated to those functions
callers.

- ARnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/