[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OFD9F2472F.5C67128A-ON482575D7.000F7E83-482575D7.0011466D@sunplusct.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:04:10 +0800
From: liqin.chen@...plusct.com
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch-owner@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, liqin.chen@...plusct.com,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: add EMAXERRNO
linux-arch-owner@...r.kernel.org 写于 2009-06-15 22:02:42:
> On Monday 15 June 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 03:30:09PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Some architectures want to flag error returns from a syscall based
on
> > > the return value. The range from zero to -511 is for errors that
> > > we can return to user space, so add a #define for this to
> > > include/asm-generic/errno.h.
> >
> > I thought we could return anything up to -4095.
>
> Sort of, yes. Internally to the kernel, we use anything up to 4095,
> that's e.g. IS_ERR_VALUE checks for.
>
> Error numbers from 512 to 4095 are internal and should never be seen
> by the user.
>
> In reality, it probably does not matter at all because we know what
> error numbers we use. Now that you pointed me to include/linux/err.h,
> that already defines MAX_ERRNO.
>
> Liqin, I think I'd prefer to just drop my patch again, and you can
> use MAX_ERRNO, which is defined in err.h.
>
OK.
But I think move MAX_ERRNO define from include/linux/err.h to
include/asm-generic/errno.h will be more clear. And no harm to
include/linux/err.h file.
liqin
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists