On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:43:50PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > You need to return -ENOTTY from scsi_verify_blk_ioctl and -ENOIOCTLCMD from > > > sd_compat_ioctl, because -ENOIOCTLCMD will not be handled correctly by > > > block/ioctl.c. This would break BLKROSET and BLKFLSBUF done by non-root > > > but with the appropriate capabilities. > > > > > > Fixed patch follows. If you prefer that I send an interdiff, let me know. > > Wait, why do you want the stable trees to diverge from what is in > Linus's tree with regards to the error codes being returned? > > That doesn't seem safe, or sane. > > So for now, I'm going to follow what is in Linus's tree. If you > need/want the error codes to be different, then shouldn't it also be > done there as well? May be because the stable trees do not have 07d106d0a33d6063d2061305903deb02489eba20? "vfs: fix up ENOIOCTLCMD error handling"? c'ya sven-haegar -- Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. - Ben F. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
