On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 09:42:56AM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Wed 2019-02-13 15:54:55, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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. > > I would not complicate it. EAFNOSUPPORT looks too special, > see below. Also it is controversial here because vsprintf() > does not implement any protocol. > > > > > 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. > > I am not sure that I understand it. We do not pass the error code > anywhere. The patch only changes the string that is shown instead > of the requested value. It is a hint that something is wrong > either with the caller or with the vsprintf() implementation. > > I think that it does not make sense to do a big deal from it. > "(einval)" looks informative enough to me.
OK, let's go with it. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
