On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 05:27:40PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Sami Tolvanen <samitolva...@google.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:45 PM Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> Should this be SYSCALL_DEFINE0? > > > > It can be, and that would also fix the issue. However, it does result > > in unnecessary error injection to be hooked up here, which is why > > arm64 preferred to avoid the macro when I fixed it there. S390 uses > > SYSCALL_DEFINE0 for this though and since sys_ni_syscall always > > returns -ENOSYS, it shouldn't be a huge problem. Thoughts? > > > > I don’t see why all syscalls except these few should have error injection > hooked up. It’s also IMO nicer from a maintenance perspective to have all > syscalls use the same macros. > > Will, is there something I’m missing?
There was a reasonable request from Mark (CC'd) not to allow error injection for unimplemented system calls, so that's why we took the approach that we did. There was also a vague plan to fix this for everybody [1] but evidently nobody found the time :( Will [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190524215821.ga37...@google.com/T/#m6519b2aad06d8c384de1f55256f08687c83d8796
