[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1442336539.1914.34.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:02:19 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/6] exterr: Introduce extended syscall error
reporting
> I think that anything other than the errno "grab it now or lose it"
> behavior will prove confusing. I don't think there is any other way to
> know that a given error report corresponds to a specific system call.
> Library calls can mess it up. Kernel changes adding extended reporting to
> new system calls can mess it up. Applications cannot possibly be expected
> to know which system calls might change the error-reporting status, they
> *have* to assume all of them will.
>
Yeah I was about to say something similar - an application that expects
a certain syscall to have extended errors will get confused if running
on an older kernel where that syscall in fact does *not* have extended
errors (and thus also doesn't clear extended errors) and therefore the
extended error from a previous syscall could still be lingering on (for
example because the application didn't care to fetch it for that previo
us syscall.)
johannes
--
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