Hi, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Well, IMO, invalid user input isn't a good reason to pollute the printk > buffer. Maybe you could write a simple wrapper script which gives the > user a more helpful error message? Writing '1' to the enable file when it is already enabled isn't invalid input, its an idempotent interface. The intention of the user is to enable livepatching. If it is already enabled, their request isn't invalid, it just doesn't need any new action to be taken. If userspace needs to enable (or disable) live patching, why force them to check the previous value and test around each write (where now you may race between read and subsequent write)? yours, Bobby -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
