netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] posix clocks: introduce syscall for clock tuning.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:43:30 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] posix clocks: introduce syscall for clock tuning.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:57:26PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > +static inline int common_clock_adj(const clockid_t which_clock, int ppb,
> > +				   struct timespec *tp)
> > +{
> > +	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static int no_timer_create(struct k_itimer *new_timer)
> >  {
> >  	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> So we already return -EOPNOTSUPP in some cases? The man page does not document this.
> I wonder if we should change that to -EINVAL as well.

ENOTTY is the usual errno for "inappropriate ioctl for device".  Due to
the way this patch has been chopped up, I can't tell if that's what is
intended here.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html