Em dom., 18 de abr. de 2021 às 19:56, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 1:03 PM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ENOTSUPP is not a valid userland errno[1], which is annoying for > > userland applications that implement a fallback to iterative, report > > errors via 'strerror()' or both. > > > > The batched ops return this errno whenever an operation > > is not implemented for kernels that implement batched ops. > > > > In older kernels, pre batched ops, it returns EINVAL as the arguments > > are not supported in the syscall. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200511165319.2251678-1-kuba@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > > index fd495190115e..88fe19c0aeb1 100644 > > --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c > > @@ -3961,7 +3961,7 @@ static int bpf_task_fd_query(const union bpf_attr *attr, > > #define BPF_DO_BATCH(fn) \ > > do { \ > > if (!fn) { \ > > - err = -ENOTSUPP; \ > > + err = -EOPNOTSUPP; \ > > $ git grep EOPNOTSUPP kernel/bpf/|wc -l > 11 > $ git grep ENOTSUPP kernel/bpf/|wc -l > 51 > > For new code EOPNOTSUPP is better, but I don't think changing all 51 case > is a good idea. Something might depend on it already. OK, makes sense. Perhaps, handle this errno in 'libbpf_strerror()'? So language bindings don't get lost when dealing with this errno.
