Hello Jan,
On 12/8/25 14:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.2025 21:36, Milan Djokic wrote:
This patch series provides minor updates to the domctl and sysctl handling
of unsupported commands. Currently the behavior diverges: some commands
return -EOPNOTSUPP, while others fall back to the generic -ENOSYS.
This series aligns the behavior so that unsupported commands consistently
return the appropriate error code, allowing the control domain to correctly
identify unsupported operations.
What, even after having looked at all the patches (and their descriptions),
still isn't clear to me is why the distinction ENOSYS vs EOPNOTSUPP would
matter. Tool stacks still need to be prepared to get back ENOSYS, at the
very least as long as they mean to run on older hypervisors as well. And
with Penny's work to allow excluding domctl/sysctl altogether, I expect
ENOSYS would then also be what results if that option is made use of.
I think that ENOSYS and EOPNOTSUPP are both handled properly by the
toolstack. This change is more related to control domains without
standard tool stack (e.g. zephyr or xtf domain). Especially for xtf
tests, we expect that consistent error code is provided for unsupported
hypercall commands. Right now this is not the case.
Still, this is not a ‘must’, but in my view it would be better if we had
the handling aligned between different hypercalls and commands.
BR,
Milan
