On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 06:10:47PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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"? > > I believe that is the case, yes. Linus was unhappy about ENOIOCTLCMD vs. > ENOTTY overall when the patch was first submitted, which lead to that commit. > The patches Paolo submitted for stable are the original versions that apply > directly to 3.2 and older. > > 07d106d0a isn't really stable material as it was put into 3.3 to catch any odd > fallout from the change. Ok, thanks both of you, that makes more sense now. I'll take Paolo's updated patches and do a release now. greg k-h -- 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
