Re: [PATCH] drm: Use ENOENT consistently for the error return for an unmatched handle.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:46:31 +1000, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Have you verified no userspace relies on this return value? since this
> technically an ABI change.
> 
> >From what I can see probably only libdrm tests care.

I haven't found any other instances of code checking return values, more
often the error code is simply reported. Even those tests show that we can
expect EINVAL, ENOENT or EBADF for an invalid buffer handle.

It's the reporting that I want clarified as the "invalid fd" is misleading
for bug reporters. (Doubly so when this gets confused with a genuine
EBADF!)
-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel


[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux