On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:47 AM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:41:02AM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:33 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > > > > This would eliminate the possibility of returning ENODEV to userspace > > > where we shouldn't. > > > > > I understand that we'll be breaking the API contract and userspace may > > have to adapt to this change, but is it not acceptable to document and > > return ENODEV, since ENODEV may offer more clarity to userspace as to > > why the ioctl failed? In general, do we never extend the APIs? > > Yes, we extend the existing interfaces all the time, but we almost > always require user opt in for user-visible changes in behavior. Look at > the way arm64_check_features() is handled -- we hide the 'detailed' > error and return EINVAL due to UAPI. > Got it. Let's return EINVAL then. Thanks! - Raghavendra > -- > Thanks, > Oliver
