[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190130131049.gnhge73xvh62p3gl@treble>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:10:49 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Alice Ferrazzi <alicef@...cef.me>, jeyu@...nel.org,
jikos@...nel.org, mbenes@...e.cz, live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alice Ferrazzi <alice.ferrazzi@...aclelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: core: Return ENOTSUPP instead of ENOSYS
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 01:41:56PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Hmm, the error code is passed to the syscall, for example:
>
> + SYSCALL_DEFINE3(init_module
> + load_module()
> + do_init_module()
> + do_one_initcall(mod->init);
>
> I am not sure if we are allowed to return -ENOTSUPP (-524).
> It is defined in the internal include/linux/errno.h. There
> is the following commnent:
>
> /*
> * These should never be seen by user programs...
>
>
>
> I tried to find a better alternative and found:
>
> #define EOPNOTSUPP 95 /* Operation not supported on transport endpoint */
>
>
> There is the following note in man errno:
>
> ENOTSUP Operation not supported (POSIX.1)
>
> EOPNOTSUPP Operation not supported on socket (POSIX.1)
> (ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUPP have the same value
> on Linux, but according to POSIX.1 these error
> values should be distinct.)
>
> And it looks that -EOPNOTSUPP is used widely in many subsystes (not
> only network).
Yes, you are right. It's confusing that ENOTSUPP and ENOTSUP are not
the same thing. EOPNOTSUPP sounds good.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists