[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190208172717.GW9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 19:27:17 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 9/9] vsprintf: Avoid confusion between invalid address
and value
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:23:10PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> We are able to detect invalid values handled by %p[iI] printk specifier.
> The current error message is "invalid address". It might cause confusion
> against "(efault)" reported by the generic valid_pointer_address() check.
>
> Let's unify the style and use the more appropriate error code description
> "(einval)".
The proper one should be "invalid address family". The proposed change
increases confusion.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists