From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0C11BC08F; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 14:40:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791297633; cv=none; b=Y8hwQy7r7S8YwkPbivBNFelLgl1T2HIyBdme4Nq3ogYVKQ7jB2YxCTshU6q3a7zHgb9RNoPHSWa3cMErqQ4qPJCN0/J+pXXj9Blz6dvmGOnBCfLx9fWb3yPPhoxNHLXraxech5Pauu41oa6wv4tS/TtieT9SwEMmu1UmYLXnfN8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791297633; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yU78SAbfJlRqMOCIss0Z37pf6Gz3agoTMIRQf9pHTGo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YUNkjgC82ImyQQnkbhpEOswznvEPiWhfmmRpWksQ+a+//cIyCk1QgzrpUHbQJk8Ta9EWUf+EuRaWwX3xgm97w0XcXsy4Cb0uAUk7ZfwtAcd3guLwzJ8N0Q34quOPwO3X8f2RKBbs+BbkBcq6CEBe49an9Vs3y5IWzx+lcIq09kk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=NYTWwYvY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="NYTWwYvY" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A92D1516; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 07:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3F6E3F66F; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 07:40:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1791297629; bh=yU78SAbfJlRqMOCIss0Z37pf6Gz3agoTMIRQf9pHTGo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=NYTWwYvYfIsSmzz7Bqt1lsM+9W49mjsFntYVzHXBzeH+Igy14f0OdSkgGa8Hkkxxv owd38Rzp+bk+ptY4ljz9FinMm5HeVwlBvxlQ/824XQsY0/2mCxAWZRhCEdmDLm4mSg 08Oav9Xn3IDOhPDYtTScv3YwrI7+ytjapr0qzo0g= Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2026 15:40:26 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Mark Brown Cc: Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Shuah Khan , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Bill Roberts Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: gcs: Return -EPERM when changes are prevented by locking Message-ID: References: <20260910-arm64-gcs-lock-eperm-v1-0-d88e51855c9f@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260910-arm64-gcs-lock-eperm-v1-0-d88e51855c9f@kernel.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 08:00:39PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > When we refuse to change the GCS configuraiton due to locking we > currently return -EBUSY which is an odd choice. The only userspace I > found that relies on this value at present is the kselftest and other > architectures are using the more obvious -EPERM here let's switch. IIUC, riscv is returning -EINVAL. Should we get an overall consistent value? Personally I find -EBUSY quite descriptive but I don't mind aligning the architectures (before user space starts making use of the return value). -- Catalin