Hi Günther, > Date: 2026-10-18 16:40:53+0200 > From: Günther Noack > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 02:37:49PM +0200, Günther Noack wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 01:19:34PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Date: 2026-10-16 19:31:21+0200 > > > > From: Günther Noack > > > > > > > > unix_create() in linux.git net/unix/af_unix.c only fails if > > > > 'protocol && protocol != PF_UNIX'. 0 is the usual value, and the one > > > > used in the SYNOPSIS. > > > > > > The commit message seems bogus. What does that 'only' intend to mean? > > > The actual diff seems better than the commit message, but I'm not taking > > > it. This is an example of the nonsense produced by LLMs. I'm NAKing > > > the remainders of the patch set; that is, for patches 06..24/24: > > > > > > Nacked-by: Alejandro Colomar > > > > > > The exception for LLM use is explicitly terminated. > > > > The commit message may be short, but it is factually correct: The > > referenced unix_create() function starts with this guard at the > > beginning: > > > > if (protocol && protocol != PF_UNIX) > > return -EPROTONOSUPPORT; > > > > It rejects the creation with EPROTONOSUPPORT (only) if the condition > > "protocol && protocol != PF_UNIX) is met. That is, protocol must be > > either 0, or it must be PF_UNIX (a.k.a. AF_UNIX) to pass the check. > > To answer your question about "only" more directly: > > The existing man page makes it sound as if the error was returned in > the case where protocol != AF_UNIX. > > But in the implementation, the error does get returned when > > protocol != 0 *and* protocol != AF_UNIX. > > That is a more restrictive condition under which the error is > returned, thus the commit message says that it is "only". Hmmmmm, it seems I had misunderstood (I had inverted some check in my head), and the commit message was indeed correct with 'only'. Sorry! I was very skeptical reviewing, just in case. :) Since it was just me that I was wrong, I'll continue reviewing. Ignore my NAK. Have a lovely day! Alex > > –Günther --