On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 02:47:42PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > Since you joined the discussion, you have the opportunity to agree or > disagree with our decision to change readahead() to ESPIPE. > Judging by your citing of lseek and posix_fadvise standard, > I assume that you will be on board? I'm fine with returning ESPIPE (it's like ENOTTY in a sense). but that's not what kbuild reported: readahead01.c:62: TFAIL: readahead(fd[0], 0, getpagesize()) succeeded 61: fd[0] = SAFE_SOCKET(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); 62: TST_EXP_FAIL(readahead(fd[0], 0, getpagesize()), EINVAL); I think LTP would report 'wrong error code' rather than 'succeeded' if it were returning ESPIPE. I'm not OK with readahead() succeeding on a socket. I think that should also return ESPIPE. I think posix_fadvise() should return ESPIPE on a socket too, but reporting bugs to the Austin Group seems quite painful. Perhaps somebody has been through this process and can do that for us?
