[Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/privcmd: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented IOCTLs
The code goes so far as to set the default return code to -ENOSYS but then overrides this to -EINVAL in the switch() statement's default case. This patch removes this pointless and incorrect override. Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant --- Cc: Boris Ostrovsky Cc: Juergen Gross --- drivers/xen/privcmd.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c index 6e3306f..b4e5e27 100644 --- a/drivers/xen/privcmd.c +++ b/drivers/xen/privcmd.c @@ -572,7 +572,6 @@ static long privcmd_ioctl(struct file *file, break; default: - ret = -EINVAL; break; } -- 2.1.4 ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/privcmd: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented IOCTLs
>>> On 09.02.17 at 15:17, wrote: > The code goes so far as to set the default return code to -ENOSYS but > then overrides this to -EINVAL in the switch() statement's default > case. If you already change this, isn't -ENOTTY the traditional way of indicating unsupported ioctls? Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/privcmd: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented IOCTLs
On 02/09/2017 09:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 09.02.17 at 15:17, wrote: The code goes so far as to set the default return code to -ENOSYS but then overrides this to -EINVAL in the switch() statement's default case. If you already change this, isn't -ENOTTY the traditional way of indicating unsupported ioctls? In fact, a while ago David submitted a patch to do just that: https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016-08/msg00744.html but it never went anywhere. My question is whether anyone might be relying on current error return behavior. -boris ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/privcmd: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented IOCTLs
> -Original Message- > From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrov...@oracle.com] > Sent: 09 February 2017 15:26 > To: Jan Beulich ; Paul Durrant > > Cc: xen-de...@lists.xenproject.org; Juergen Gross ; > linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] xen/privcmd: return -ENOSYS for > unimplemented IOCTLs > > > > On 02/09/2017 09:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 09.02.17 at 15:17, wrote: > >> The code goes so far as to set the default return code to -ENOSYS but > >> then overrides this to -EINVAL in the switch() statement's default > >> case. > > > > If you already change this, isn't -ENOTTY the traditional way of > > indicating unsupported ioctls? > > In fact, a while ago David submitted a patch to do just that: > > https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2016- > 08/msg00744.html > > but it never went anywhere. > > My question is whether anyone might be relying on current error return > behavior. I doubt it. It's certainly not a safe thing to do anyway. I'll change to -ENOTTY in v2 of the patch. Paul > > > -boris ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
