From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0295DC433EF for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:25:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4LPDF62rj6z3bdk for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 06:25:14 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=MgBota0L; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=intel.com (client-ip=134.134.136.65; helo=mga03.intel.com; envelope-from=dave.hansen@intel.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=MgBota0L; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LPDDP4Nrbz3bkt for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 06:24:30 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1655411077; x=1686947077; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=u7s3vzw8pok7nOqE3kB+YqdXs3ysm3lKy+WAyqtMJpg=; b=MgBota0L4LZnfS6aAJncmXiT4swXwsD+GRw1PmHuVi4Jhc8xv1AzWzms fO7Ha50dAhjITwDYHVkr1L40BaLEBk857bEg1qmOeZcqJipmB1LtSt3/Q Ue6Useo9th4+MUYUnh/mYz1b7HGfc/TJs0nBJtmwdU9OA/OLrit82ireV NvHdH4fm1INnHY8P614KFEFNipAFSkLBd6UgcFqQLq81ZRDEC+FzLJjPK MJSSCZvF/eABbZnQZWU9i6fny9c/mwOcP7ijM5b1nqGc6PxHxy3Gf2KI9 nJB6x1JgacuzScJFGp/98rRMayrH1pacj8FTpB0P3K0jdwZC4/dvqLotD A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10380"; a="280377596" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,306,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="280377596" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jun 2022 13:24:26 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,306,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="641715046" Received: from rrmiller-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.212.205.54]) ([10.212.205.54]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jun 2022 13:24:25 -0700 Message-ID: <9f1d9f74-e6fd-c6cc-4999-61eccadc7bf2@intel.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 13:24:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] testing/pkeys: Add additional test for pkey_alloc() Content-Language: en-US To: Sohil Mehta , ira.weiny@intel.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org References: <20220610233533.3649584-1-ira.weiny@intel.com> <20220610233533.3649584-4-ira.weiny@intel.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: x86@kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 6/16/22 12:25, Sohil Mehta wrote: > Should we have different return error codes when compile support is > disabled vs when runtime support is missing? It doesn't *really* matter. Programs have to be able to run on old kernels which will return ENOSYS. So, _when_ new kernels return ENOSYS or ENOSPC is pretty immaterial.