Re: The msr_safe functions and returning -EFAULT

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 08/31/2009 05:24 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 08/30/09 14:05, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Right now, the *msr_safe() functions are returning -EFAULT.  As far as I
>> can tell, this makes absolutely no sense -- EFAULT is a nonsensical
>> error (it means a pointer into user memory given to a system call is
>> invalid), and the only user that seems to use this as anything other
>> than a boolean is the MSR driver, which wants EIO.
>>
>> Sending out an email in case I have missed any instances, but I'm
>> inclined to just change this to EIO globally.
>>
>> Anyone has objections?
>>   
> 
> I think the only rationale for EFAULT is that the *msr will fail with
> GP, and a GPing instruction will send a SIGSEGV to usermode, and EFAULT
> is the synchronous error-code equiv of SIGSEGV.  Sorta.
> 
> EIO makes more sense overall.  Or ENXIO.

Well, EIO is what we want for the MSR driver, so I have just switched it
to EIO across the board.  As far as I can tell, there were no other
users that didn't just test for error or no error.

	-hpa


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/