[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: Bug in cdrom_ioctl?

> > In linux-2.4.2/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c:cdrom_ioctl() branches
> > CDROM_SET_OPTIONS and CDROM_CLEAR_OPTIONS both return like this:
> >
> > return cdi->options;
> >
> > If cdi->options is non-zero, the ioctl() calls returns non-zero.
> > My ioctl(2) manpage says that a successful ioctl() should return
> > zero. Now I dont know which is at fault here - the cdrom.c code or
> > the manpage. :-) Could somebody enlighten me?
> >
> > /Per Erik Stendahl
> > -
> Specifically, (at the API) upon an error -1 (nothing else) is to be
> returned and 'errno' set appropriately. The results of a
> successful ioctl()
> operation is supposed to have been returned in the parameter list (via
> pointer). So, you have found a design bug. I wonder how much stuff
> gets broken if this gets fixed?

I looked around a bit more in cdrom_ioctl(). There are more cases
where data gets passed back in the return code. If the official
ioctl() policy is to only pass success/fail status in the return
code then it would require some work to fix cdrom_ioctl (breaking
a number of apps in the process :-).

> I suggest you just fix it and see what breaks. Maybe sombody's
> CD writer will break, but a patch will quickly be made by the
> maintainer(s).

For now I did the quickest thing and check ioctl() for -1 instead
of 0.

Is there any good documentation on ioctl calls somewhere?

/Per Erik Stendahl
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.040 / U:1.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site