On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 09:09:40PM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > Hi, > > By concidence I ran across this lkml message > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135628421403144&w=2 > > with an important part in the middle: (this is not a drm commit) > > To make matters worse, commit f0ed2ce840b3 is clearly total and utter > CRAP even if it didn't break applications. ENOENT is not a valid error > return from an ioctl. Never has been, never will be. ENOENT means "No > such file and directory", and is for path operations. ioctl's are done > on files that have already been opened, there's no way in hell that > ENOENT would ever be valid. > > Perhaps we should rethink the use of ENOENT when not finding mode objects? Yeah, it's somewhat abuse, otoh if we'd do a dma-buf export telling userspace that "no such file exists" is a pretty precise answer. In a way we _do_ duplicate file objects ... And having this special error code for lookup failures is occasionally rather useful imo. So honestly I'd prefer we keep on doing our practice. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
