[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171020085722.n422sxot6k7kipjy@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:57:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 1/5] kprobes: Use ENOTSUPP instead of ENOSYS
* Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> Use ENOTSUPP instead of ENOSYS because ENOSYS is reserved
> only for invalid syscall number.
Is this actually true? We use -ENOSYS in a ton of code in kernel/ already, not
just for non-existing syscall number.
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists