On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 04:45:30PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2019-02-08 19:27:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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. > > I am confused. Is there any error code for "invalid address family"?
I'm not sure. There is EAFNOSUPPORT. I don't know if it suits better. > EINVAL is standard error code used when a wrong value is passed > as a parameter. In this case, the code is not able to handle > the given address family. This is possible, but it will produce more generic message. > IMHO, the original message "invalid address" has been even more > confusing. Oops would happen if it was invalid. In fact, the value > was invalid. I agree with this. "Address" may be treated as "memory address", while in practice it's a "network address". -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
