From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56872 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753345AbdHRDJo (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 23:09:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 22:09:41 -0500 From: Kim Phillips To: David Howells Cc: , , , , , , , perf group , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/27] Provide supplementary error message facility [ver #5] Message-Id: <20170817220941.8c6532b076bb0d8db60a6968@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <149745337097.10897.6533194783327792549.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <149745330648.10897.9605870130502083184.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <149745337097.10897.6533194783327792549.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:16:11 +0100 David Howells wrote: > Provide a way for the kernel to pass supplementary error messages to > userspace. This will make it easier for userspace, particularly in > containers to find out what went wrong during mounts and automounts, but is > also made available to any other syscalls that want to use it. Hi all, I see patches 1-5 have already made it to Linus' master branch, but I can't determine the status of this particular patch. Assuming it's still under consideration, I'd like to attest to the significantly higher level of user experience improvement it can give perf users (see RFC below): Am I taking the right approach here by assuming this new error message facility is indeed eligible for upstream acceptance sometime soon? Thanks, Kim