From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:01:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:01:32 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:29197 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:01:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:59:49 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: "Richard B. Johnson" Cc: Pete Zaitcev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patchlet for cs46xx Message-ID: <20010125185949.B444@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <3A70588B.4692D937@metabyte.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from root@chaos.analogic.com on Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:41:28PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 25 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > [SNIPPED...] > >From what I tested, copy_to/from_user, now seg-faults the caller directly. > If the function returns, it worked. Therefore you will never get a > chance to return -EFAULT. Huh?? copy_to/from_user returns the bytes _not_ copied, in which case you return -EFAULT go segv the caller. I think the confusion usually is that put/get_user return -EFAULT directly. -- * Jens Axboe * SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/