Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | 15 Jun 2004 02:20:44 +0200 | | Date | Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:20:44 +0200 | | From | Andi Kleen <> | | Subject | Re: NUMA API observations |
| |
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 05:06:05PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > > I really dislike this error code [EINVAL] btw ... > > Then use others ?? > > The way I learned Unix, decades ago, the tradition was to use a variety > of errno values, even if they were a slightly strange fit, in order to > provide more detailed error feedback. Look for example at the rename(2) > or acct(2) system calls.
I tried to use creative errnos in the past (we have some interesting unused ones from SYSV that can be abused like EADV or EDOTDOT or ELIBBAD or EILSEQ), but Linus tends to reject patches that use them. It wouldn't help here anyways, since libnuma has to work with existing kernels. And changing the errno now would probably break all user space workaround code people have developed for this misfeature.
Best would be probably to fix the kernel to check that the passed buffer is big enough for the highest running CPU, And it should error out when there are bits set above the cpumask limit (see the code in mm/mempolicy.c that checks all this for node masks). I will cook up a patch for this later.
-Andi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |