On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 06:41:22AM +0000, Drokin, Oleg wrote: > subject have been missing, so I filled in something. > > On Aug 3, 2015, at 2:18 AM, Shraddha Barke wrote: > > > From b67c6c20455b04b77447ab4561e44f1a75dd978d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Shraddha Barke <shraddha.6596@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:34:19 +0530 > > Subject: [PATCH] Staging : lustre : Use -EINVAL instead of -ENOSYS > > > > ENOSYS means that a nonexistent system call was called. This should > > not be used for invalid operations on otherwise valid syscalls. > > > > Use -EINVAL instead of -ENOSYS. This fixes checkpatch warning message: > > > > WARNING: ENOSYS means 'invalid syscall nr' and nothing else > > Is this really true, though? > I know you are working off what the tool reports. > But in reality people have been using ENOSYS to indicate > "this thing that you want is not really available" > Reading the define file we can see: > /usr/include/asm-generic/errno.h:#define ENOSYS 38 /* Function not implemented */ > > $ grep -r 'ENOSYS;' fs/ | wc -l > 75 > > So it's extensively used in the fs tree by existing code. > > Hmm…. Searching some more I arrived at commit e15f431f > that changes the in-kernel comment and claims the "system call only stuff". > > So Greg, do you want Lustre to get rid of use of ENOSYS (all 16 users we have), > or is it ok to leave them in? For now I'd just leave it as-is. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
