lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC c/r 2/4] [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall v7
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 12:33:07PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> writes:
> >> + ret = kcmp_ptr((long)filp1, (long)filp2, KCMP_FILE);
> >> + else
> >> + ret = -ENOENT;
> >
> > If my remember is correct, Andrew pointed out EINVAL is better than ENOENT.
>
> Ah yes. And really what it should be is
> if (!filp1 || !filp2)
> return -EBADF;
>
> At least EBADF is what you return if it is your process that doesn't
> have the filedescriptor.
>

Eric, I've sent out version with

if (filp1 && filp2)
...
else
ret = -EBADF;

maybe you're lookin into previous version?

> >> + KCMP_SYSVSEM);
> >> +#else
> >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >
> > ENOTSUP is better, I think. because of, EINVAL implicitly mean _caller_ is wrong.
> > but in this case, it is not bad. only the kernel doesn't have enough
> > feature.
>
> Careful a type compiled out should in principle match a type whose
> support has not been implemented. That is the default case should match
> what happens when you don't compile in sysvipc support.

I don't get it :) Will -EINVAL be enough or not?

Cyrill


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-27 21:53    [W:0.063 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site