On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:45:34AM -0500, Daniel De Graaf wrote:
> On 01/10/2011 04:52 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> static long gntdev_ioctl(struct file *flip,
> >> unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> >> {
> >> @@ -555,9 +538,6 @@ static long gntdev_ioctl(struct file *flip,
> >> case IOCTL_GNTDEV_GET_OFFSET_FOR_VADDR:
> >> return gntdev_ioctl_get_offset_for_vaddr(priv, ptr);
> >>
> >> - case IOCTL_GNTDEV_SET_MAX_GRANTS:
> >> - return gntdev_ioctl_set_max_grants(priv, ptr);
> >
> > Would it make sense to return -EPNOTSUPPORTED? Or does it not really
> > matter as nobody has been using this ioctl call?
>
> Does this produce a clearer error message than the default -ENOIOCTLCMD?
> It's possible that some people use it, since it was exposed as an API.
Looking at the Xen tools the user of this is:
xc_gnttab_set_max_grants which would end up returning whatever the
error is. I don't see any users of this in the Xen tools, thought there might
be some in the XCP code. Lets stay with your ENOIOCTLCMD.
However, I was wondering if you are going to submit a patch to the Xen
tool stack so that it can utlize the SysFS interface to set the limits
for that API call?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home