> On July 23, 2012, 11:12 a.m., Marc Orr wrote: > > src/sim/syscall_emul.hh, line 601 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1318/diff/1/?file=28137#file28137line601> > > > > Why is this fatal being changed to a warn? I'm not necessarily against > > this, but I thought a lot of the effort and controversy generated by this > > patch was that unsupported ioctl's should cause a fatal. > > Steve Reinhardt wrote: > Good question. I think one thing that happened was that, in the process > of digging into this a little more, I found that, for historical reasons, > ENOTTY really is the right error code to return for an unrecognized ioctl, > even in situations where there's no relationship to ttys at all. It turns > out Vince had already pointed this out yet somehow it didn't sink in for me. > So based on that, I felt better about simply warning and returning ENOTTY. > However, the white list is still very important in avoiding warnings when > ENOTTY is actually the right error code in the sense of "we recognize this > ioctl and ENOTTY is what we really want to return" as opposed to "we're > returning ENOTTY because we don't recognize this ioctl". > > I'm not 100% committed to this though, and I'm willing to change this > back to fatal if people feel that's still appropriate. > > Ali Saidi wrote: > I'm sort of indifferent, I'd just like to see the patch committed and > it's taken about 100x longer than it should for the size of the change (imho).
Ok, well, based on that explanation, I'm ok with changing the fatal to a warning. - Marc ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1318/#review3133 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 22, 2012, 5:29 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1318/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 22, 2012, 5:29 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > [Note: this is an updated version of Marc's patch #1187. I realized I hadn't > pushed that, but when I went to test it, it didn't compile for ARM. I ended > up doing some more restructuring in the process of fixing that problem.] > > syscall emulation: Clean up ioctl handling, and implement for x86. > > Enable different whitelists for different OS/arch combinations, > since some use the generic Linux definitions only, and others > use definitions inherited from earlier Unix flavors on those > architectures. > > Also update x86 function pointers so ioctl is no longer > unimplemented on that platform. > > This patch is a revised version of Vince Weaver's earlier patch. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/arch/alpha/linux/linux.hh UNKNOWN > src/arch/alpha/tru64/tru64.hh UNKNOWN > src/arch/arm/linux/linux.hh UNKNOWN > src/arch/mips/linux/linux.hh UNKNOWN > src/arch/power/linux/linux.hh UNKNOWN > src/arch/sparc/linux/linux.hh UNKNOWN > src/arch/x86/linux/syscalls.cc UNKNOWN > src/kern/linux/linux.hh UNKNOWN > src/sim/syscall_emul.hh UNKNOWN > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1318/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > passes 'util/regress quick' > > > Thanks, > > Steve Reinhardt > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
