Messages in this thread | | | From | "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <> | Date | Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:42:38 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] init_module: update to modern interfaces |
| |
Hi Rusty,
Thanks for the review! One open question below.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> writes: >> [CC widened, so that some more review might come in. Rusty?] > > Sure. > > Looks good. but: > >> .B EBUSY >> The module's initialization routine failed. > > Possibly. You should mention that the individual module's > initialization routine can return other errors as appropriate.
Done!
In fact, the existing EBUSY text seems completely bogus. Should it not read something like "Timeout while trying to resolve a symbol reference by this module."?
>> .BR EINVAL " (Linux 2.4 and earlier)" >> Some >> .I image >> slot is filled in incorrectly, >> .I image\->name >> does not correspond to the original module name, some >> .I image\->deps >> entry does not correspond to a loaded module, >> or some other similar inconsistency. >> .TP > > Why document this?
Because the general approach in man-pages is to document past as well as current behavior. Since there are few user-space customers of init_module(), perhaps you are right that this is unnecessary. I dropped it.
>> .B ENOEXEC >> The ELF image in >> .I module_image >> is too small or has corrupted segments. > > Or is not an ELF image, or wrong arch...
Yes, reworded here.
[...]
> You might want to note that the 2.4 syscall can be detected by calling > query_module(): 2.6 and above give ENOSYS.
Done.
Thanks,
Michael
-- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/
| |