On 11/1/23 20:41, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
For unknown ioctls the correct error is
ENOTTY "Inappropriate ioctl for device".
For sure!
I would like to learn more of why this is not an UAPI breaking change?
ENOSYS as returned before should only be used to indicate that a syscall
is not available at all.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
net/rfkill/core.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c
index 14cc8fe8584b..c3feb4f49d09 100644
--- a/net/rfkill/core.c
+++ b/net/rfkill/core.c
@@ -1351,11 +1351,11 @@ static long rfkill_fop_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
unsigned long arg)
{
struct rfkill_data *data = file->private_data;
- int ret = -ENOSYS;
+ int ret = -ENOTTY;
u32 size;
if (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) != RFKILL_IOC_MAGIC)
- return -ENOSYS;
+ return -ENOTTY;
mutex_lock(&data->mtx);
switch (_IOC_NR(cmd)) {
---
base-commit: 7d461b291e65938f15f56fe58da2303b07578a76
change-id: 20231101-rfkill-ioctl-enosys-00a2bb0a4ab1
Best regards,
