[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a069393c-86b3-ef79-82dd-0b60caf2a907@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 09:57:45 +0100
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: return ENOTTY on invalid ioctl
On 11/1/23 20:41, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> For unknown ioctls the correct error is
> ENOTTY "Inappropriate ioctl for device".
For sure!
I would like to learn more of why this is not an UAPI breaking change?
>
> ENOSYS as returned before should only be used to indicate that a syscall
> is not available at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
> ---
> net/rfkill/core.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c
> index 14cc8fe8584b..c3feb4f49d09 100644
> --- a/net/rfkill/core.c
> +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c
> @@ -1351,11 +1351,11 @@ static long rfkill_fop_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> unsigned long arg)
> {
> struct rfkill_data *data = file->private_data;
> - int ret = -ENOSYS;
> + int ret = -ENOTTY;
> u32 size;
>
> if (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) != RFKILL_IOC_MAGIC)
> - return -ENOSYS;
> + return -ENOTTY;
>
> mutex_lock(&data->mtx);
> switch (_IOC_NR(cmd)) {
>
> ---
> base-commit: 7d461b291e65938f15f56fe58da2303b07578a76
> change-id: 20231101-rfkill-ioctl-enosys-00a2bb0a4ab1
>
> Best regards,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists