On 03/26/18 at 08:17pm, Michal Suchánek wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 15:53:24 +0800 > Dave Young <dyoung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Simon > > On 03/26/18 at 09:25am, Simon Horman wrote: > > > Hi Michal, thanks for the updated patches. > > > > > > Dave, are you planning to review this series? > > > > > > > I have same concern as I commented in last versioni, but seems > > we can not convince each other with Michal. > > > > For example for -EINVAL/-ENOEXEC, since it can be some misc > > error checking in kernel code, it is not equal to an unsupported > > syscall. I'm not keen to think broken kernel file (include the case > > for unsupported kernel format, but not limit to that) is equal as an > > unsupported syscall > > I do not say it is equal to unsupported syscall. However, the kernel > cannot really tell if the image is complete garbage or if it is in > format it does not understand. The only way to check that is trying to > load in the old way. I don't see any way around that if we want an > --auto option which is of any use. Maybe it is some personal taste, I tend to only checking syscall supported so that it can be simpler. And maybe from the beginning I understand the "supported" as only for the syscall itself.. Anyway as having said before let's see how Simon think about this. Thanks Dave _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
