On Thu, 24.04.14 07:35, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote: > On Thu, 24.04.14 07:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > Have you checked that EOPNOTSUPP is really the error that is returned by > > > name_to_handle_at() if the kernel has the entire syscall disabled? Note > > > that there are two different cases to distuingish here: a file system > > > not supporting the operation, and the kernel not supporting the > > > syscal... > > It's warning on everything except EOPNOTSUPP. My reasoning is: > > > > EOPNOTSUPP -> syscall supported, but wrong fs type, -> return false > > ENOSYS -> syscall not supported -> warn and return false > > any other error -> memory error or other major screw-up -> warn and return > > false > > Looks good to me then, Kay? > > Though I still wonder about the difference between ENOTSUP and > EOPNOTSUPP. path_is_mount_point() expectes the former, your patch the > latter?
Got it, on Linux ENOTSUP is simply an alias for EOPNOTSUPP... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
