Hi Mickaël, On 4/17/23 22:54, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >>>> BTW, now I checked that while in Linux ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUPP are >>>> equivalent, in POSIX the latter has a connotation that it's about > > For Linux: > #define EOPNOTSUPP 95 /* Operation not supported on transport endpoint */ > #define ENOTSUPP 524 /* Operation is not supported */ $ errno 95 EOPNOTSUPP 95 Operation not supported $ errno 524 $ echo $? 1 $ grepc -k ENOTSUP /usr/include/ /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/errno.h:30:# define ENOTSUP EOPNOTSUPP $ grepc -k ENOTSUPP /usr/include/ $ grepc -k EOPNOTSUPP /usr/include/ /usr/include/asm-generic/errno.h:78:#define EOPNOTSUPP 95 /* Operation not supported on transport endpoint */ Is ENOTSUPP a kernel thing? User space we doesn't seem to agree with that :). I'm on Debian Sid. Indeed, it seems a kernel thing: $ man -Kaw ENOTSUPP /usr/local/man/man1/checkpatch.1 That page is one I wrote extracting info from checkpatch.rst. It seems checkpatch.pl warns about use of ENOTSUPP. > > EOPNOTSUPP is not only used for network error, but to identify generic > unsupported operations, while ENOTSUPP was initially dedicated to NFS > error (but now also slipped to other areas) > >>>> sockets. Should we document ENOTSUP in landlock_create_ruleset(2) >>>> instead of EOPNOTSUPP? >> >>> EOPNOTSUP is also used in Landlock's kernel documentation, >>> we'd maybe have to update it there as well. >>> I'll have a look at what is more common. >> >> Thanks. In the man pages I see both often, so maybe we need to fix >> consistency there too. > > No, ENOTSUP*P* is not used by Landlock. But should it? I mean ENOTSUP, not ENOTSUPP. Cheers, Alex -- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
