[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091015162926.25a99cab@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:29:26 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...glemail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 6/7] um: Convert mmapper to unlocked_ioctl
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:00:34 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...glemail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 15 October 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The ioctl is empty and needs no serialization. We might remove it
> > completely but that would change the return value from -ENOIOCTLCMD to
> > -ENOTTY.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>
>
> This one is tricky if you want to get it right according to the
> book. ENOIOCTLCMD is never a valid return code for user space,
> but sys_ioctl passes it down anyway.
>
> However, returning -ENOIOCTLCMD from an *unlocked_ioctl* function
> automatically gets turned into -EINVAL. It does this to allow
> the same functions to be used for unlocked_ioctl and compat_ioctl.
> In effect, this patch is functionally identical to removing the
> ioctl function, which I think is what should be done here.
That is wrong.
SuS requires an unknown ioctl code returns -ENOTTY. If the code is
currently remapping it to EINVAL then it wants fixing.
--
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