[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061213110847.2b6b25db@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:08:47 +0000
From: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
Cc: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ak@....de,
vojtech@...e.cz
Subject: Re: BUG? atleast >=2.6.19-rc5, x86 chroot on x86_64
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:50:01 -0500
Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com> wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <1165984783.23819.7.camel@...alhost>
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:39:43 +0100, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
>
> > do you think it may be a bug in the kernel? the stuff with wine that
> > gets thrown in the kernel messages?
>
> Let's just say the behavior has changed. It now returns
> -EINVAL instead of -ENOTTY when the msdos IOCTLs fail.
For an unknown ioctl the correct return is -ENOTTY. For an invalid ioctl
(known but wrong parameters) it may be -EINVAL.
> Anyway, here is a much simpler patch that restores the previous
> behavior (but leaves the message.) However if you aren't having
> any problems now other than the messages maybe there's no real
> problem after all?
As far as I can see from a quick review the code should return -ENOTTY
in this situation not -EINVAL, for all unhandled ioctls.
Alan
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists