From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WKoyH-0003dY-Uz for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:01:22 +0000 Message-ID: <1393938044.6302.2.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: block: Use ENOSYS as return value when CONFIG_UBIBLOCK=n From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Ezequiel Garcia Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:00:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20140304121446.GA8826@localhost> References: <1393930663-8737-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1393933791.3412.208.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <20140304121446.GA8826@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 09:14 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 01:49:51PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 07:57 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > > In order to have a way of distinguishing an invalid ioctl from a > > > not supported (but otherwise valid) ioctl, this commit changes the > > > return value of the ioctl stubs from ENOTTY to ENOSYS. > > > > Sounds logical, no objections, except it is curious if this is something > > you invented or this is a general rule in the Linux kernel? If it is, > > may be you can point to some discussions, or give some example or other > > source of this knowledge? I just want to be educated a bit. Thanks! > > > > Yes, I think it's a pretty extended kernel practice to return -ENOSYS when > a function is not built or either not implemented. Pushed this one and the previous 3 ones. I think what is left is ioctl names and the user-space tool. Thanks! -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy