On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:45:11AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > This seems coming from evdev_flush(). As there is no fd leak, it's no > > big problem per se. But, now the question is whether returning such > > an error code is correct behavior at all. At least, it doesn't seem > > defined in POSIX: > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/close.html > > Hmm, if I checked the right version of the code close_nointr_nofail() > expects only 0 as the return code so even if we change the kernel to > use more conforming -EIO instead of -ENODEV systemd will still die... > > The question is whether we really need to propagate return value from > f_op->flush() up to userspace in filp_close(). Why don't we ask Al? That's the whole damn point of having ->flush(). And yes, we do need that - things like NFS (not to mention tapes, etc.) do rely on that. Whether it makes sense to do this kind of "do something that might have a failure to report on each close()" for evdev is up to driver, obviously. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
