Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <607e3d8f-0216-127c-8f4f-6034b0d17c15@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 18:32:03 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: convert to using fops->write_iter()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <f871a510-d262-bc98-757e-204976e1b82c@kernel.dk>
 <Yobb79PvIqRRNguV@zx2c4.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <Yobb79PvIqRRNguV@zx2c4.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/19/22 6:08 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 05:43:15PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> -static int write_pool(const char __user *ubuf, size_t len)
>> +static size_t write_pool(struct iov_iter *iter)
>>  {
>>  	size_t block_len;
>>  	int ret = 0;
> 
> Changing the return value to size_t isn't quite right, as this can
> return -EFAULT. So at the very minimum, it should return a ssize_t.

Good catch, yes let's make that a ssize_t instead. Can you do that while
testing/applying?

-- 
Jens Axboe