On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 07:22:47PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > On 10/28/13 18:35, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 06:28:30PM +0200, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > >>Both POSIX.1-2008 and Linux Programmer's Manual have a dedicated return > >>error code for a case, when a file doesn't support mmap(), it's ENODEV. > >> > >>This change replaces overloaded EINVAL with ENODEV in a situation > >>described above for sysfs binary files. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy<[email protected]> > >>Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman<[email protected]> > > > >Is this a problem in linux-next or 3.12-rc7 and older kernels? What > >userspace tool is breaking here? > > The patch itself is against 3.12-rc7, but the same problem can be found > in older kernels as well. > > I assume the bugfix is quite safe, because both EINVAL and ENODEV should > be handled by user space tools, however for developers it might be > beneficial to distinguish cases of completely not supported mmap() and > supported but misused mmap() applied to a binary sysfs file. At the > moment from the user space perspective there is no indication of > unsupported mmap() over a file in sysfs.
Ok, fair enough, but it doesn't apply to my tree given the recent sysfs changes there. Can you redo this against linux-next, or wait for 3.13-rc1 and resend it against that release in a few weeks? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
