From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com (mail-pf1-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5777307AC5 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 04:51:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.169 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763527871; cv=none; b=dZvVfB4OL2m1oO37/IAcL0QLef0lf9ERGdLsEky5xcQKzeRCRu1rzZjY3c/j+6d/hAjJfCxGVzzwopTYF8AoDpBVCQjFHPikads3TdgcK5chX6gYaccslNHCBNnZ7Wg/5gjm8ehnKz0Tre6NSxEDLKW0f5/14v54W6Q0qGd/TmI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763527871; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yw4RynQSIXt3eTe4YP8FX1OSjAR1WwOZzax1dfsPlJE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:Cc:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=bXmNmoLSfaPU1DNY4PNHO5roYZaTb1k7J0qHJTcHHnZ50yoAeM34Dmq7AHbx0TxyDyd5STqKSrqZUovB2dP/D5Ve2qjCiWliCN6Di5Pu07oPdJa1adfIp8lMWM+xTUvM0cm99NMf+7QsSqClnzwP4eU3xsYweik06T5udmDXqMk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=MnIoxtzS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.169 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="MnIoxtzS" Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7ba49f92362so521578b3a.1 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 20:51:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1763527867; x=1764132667; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:cc:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BAqS8NkYodTkoqyzgw7YJU97B39PeKluqeYwNTfeVOA=; b=MnIoxtzSYx00zyWZKC+PLgNC3QT3sOXJLmZGqes414qK02GsurKygj9gIplGOkHtMN 9vhyZY0fe/eTrjQQocMGv9IxhShiB3e9yBvOzE+vOI3h2KWtqv47zTA/V8+/YGiKLVuA maXGsiuUBYbkLs4UkAcosDBLEJpBjk+Auv/0SPq/siALl1veOgx8eSnMSDu/FvH/6zN3 DcQvrdqTMpES5s5U0CnbNVMrsPOC6v7eV3Z2ZSGR5if7vCZYHTT8lbnZNf6u/v1dgT+E xunNpDfuyAOblnCmFiSfeum2UQ7Os2m402CgO79qzh7oQuAHZNoV/+/l7Hob5sVpPDKI YTAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1763527867; x=1764132667; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:cc:content-language :references:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=BAqS8NkYodTkoqyzgw7YJU97B39PeKluqeYwNTfeVOA=; b=myzJB30dtqkSEDcXhQ+QAV9XgshvIKvQg1zW1ofW1Tlgs85iaic7kzl4CB2kleYFiI x1XDZQZdO5bjZ7xYvK3nd/KnPmV7DzisUF82TC2zlfnsTVz+StLVotuItlr0U7/LhZGw jJ5tAD6aGMbhPNQPGUeJtDT4MbZH/zIb/faGLxFMRJSr1GQ4j8jmfhb18mNPWTnbbS7w qfITlYGdDs+ytAPuP6QCaZxDCUvbrTMfYNdhQaEfASp/91nGBlAfvpdTIkanbnT64fsR ryWZR4wo4OtExRJ+agUbxnPKUyEDDVGk5ypEHbf3G4a+pPVddaJFaO9hxD/RRbZMLMvI AN3Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUON0BNZYWdtytsjIjk2J4LIe/Yt26CS2swc34kOqPmiPpvIvMDonaiPOXvuoR4fFPkFITMeRd4zyB1dxw=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxLAc/nAppqN1E24Hw2Oj9KtaSICRwjVmYQUAqNor8D+dF87KGr 9NsuJ23izVEg11slzI9dCR+2FhiPDT6+mBEgyO9wrjJwO7sAiJul/k32 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnct9dTFqznq7g1VXoZcnBd5LNMa+TCtUR8sRVZ9kqf/3IRf0MBm3jyQFQtU1uRD 0mibKoFEmtTZ8tZsTz56ft8nQApNo9vTn2UmygK5xj3q4nDpSo5sswf/dy750hV+0aC6e3YKza5 NpEyo9WkYIWlaqtkpIPzgVNSDFAU/O8XKD/RRkOznTgo2pAxuMv3wfahii0iJx21vEKXsjpR5bi APoBzUbG5XUpWeajKKQv1BoWO4rTnRd5HNsZ20WWR9bC9Irifr9VfW+9GsgE4eLgBZC2PNXD3Y+ WSZdF8N9iqYxGmikJSFcKq5I/79ceKlF5eH7SX3eBYR0ABUM3AXstbTWg1t7l62A4YH99DiR3tl Eqmji2dtna0rlyNYHU5/4Wdn9fqQo2A4lDSuHUqvzurxutZ1VXrkZHSl1AjdZslmHk63kYv54LT w6fJZieKk4qeld0ATKDBozzIptqVrg2CQx/ZhPtKkXFqPZTSchZSWbIy7qQD50pit70t5ULMnzh PYRdmB//FHWDQRgvBhFH/TI/YPu1zp92skRcQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH1OnrIpHIaQrOaPNXSNfa+okDc4o69TxGrgfyoJLT+mz+U/ApiuqshLE6pxDYW+lO3R1pvUA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2383:b0:7aa:d1d4:bb7b with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7c2c33f4f40mr1469643b3a.16.1763527866846; Tue, 18 Nov 2025 20:51:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.132.48] ([119.161.98.68]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-7b924aede04sm18160310b3a.11.2025.11.18.20.51.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Nov 2025 20:51:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:21:01 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] firewire: Replace ENOSYS with appropriate error codes To: o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp References: <20251117110901.686828-1-nirbhay.lkd@gmail.com> <20251117113107.GA663208@workstation.local> Content-Language: en-US Cc: linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david.hunter.linux@gmail.com, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org From: Nirbhay Sharma In-Reply-To: <20251117113107.GA663208@workstation.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/17/25 5:01 PM, Takashi Sakamoto wrote: > Hi, > > Yes. The newly-written code should not use ENOSYS for cadual use, indeed. > > > There is a rest to discuss when changing existing code in respect to > this topic, since it brings loss of backward-compatibility to userspace > software. In this reason, I've left them as is. > > If there are any strong and specific reasons to correct them, let us > change them. Do you have such reasons? For example, Linux kernel > developer have shared the consensus and decision to ostracize such codes? > > > Thanks > > Takashi Sakamoto Hi Takashi, Thank you for your detailed review and explanation. You are absolutely right about the backward compatibility concern. I realize now that changing error codes in existing code paths could break userspace applications that might be checking for specific error values. My patch was motivated by the checkpatch.pl warning and the general kernel policy that ENOSYS should only mean "invalid syscall number." BUt, I didn't fully consider the userspace ABI implications of changing error codes in code that's already been released. I do not have a strong technical reason beyond code correctness to justify breaking backward compatibility in this case. Since these interfaces are already in use and userspace software may depend on the current behavior, the risk of breaking existing applications outweighs the benefit of this cleanup. I withdraw this patch. Thank you for taking the time to explain this, its an important lesson about the difference between fixing issues in new code versus maintaining stability in existing interfaces. Thanks, Nirbhay