[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A9C6A74.3070706@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:27:32 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Subject: Re: The msr_safe functions and returning -EFAULT
On 08/31/2009 05:24 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 08/30/09 14:05, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Right now, the *msr_safe() functions are returning -EFAULT. As far as I
>> can tell, this makes absolutely no sense -- EFAULT is a nonsensical
>> error (it means a pointer into user memory given to a system call is
>> invalid), and the only user that seems to use this as anything other
>> than a boolean is the MSR driver, which wants EIO.
>>
>> Sending out an email in case I have missed any instances, but I'm
>> inclined to just change this to EIO globally.
>>
>> Anyone has objections?
>>
>
> I think the only rationale for EFAULT is that the *msr will fail with
> GP, and a GPing instruction will send a SIGSEGV to usermode, and EFAULT
> is the synchronous error-code equiv of SIGSEGV. Sorta.
>
> EIO makes more sense overall. Or ENXIO.
Well, EIO is what we want for the MSR driver, so I have just switched it
to EIO across the board. As far as I can tell, there were no other
users that didn't just test for error or no error.
-hpa
--
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