Return-Path: Received: from merit-proxy02.merit.edu ([207.75.116.194]:49990 "EHLO merit-proxy02.merit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754407Ab1GCOLo (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:11:44 -0400 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 10:11:34 -0400 From: Jim Rees To: Luk Claes Cc: NeilBrown , Steve Dickson , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not segfault because of kernel version Message-ID: <20110703141134.GA10071@merit.edu> References: <1309617149-3993-1-git-send-email-luk@debian.org> <20110703150421.2db09d94@notabene.brown> <4E100E17.5000304@debian.org> <20110703130237.GA9889@merit.edu> <4E106A56.1050802@debian.org> <20110703132605.GC9889@merit.edu> <4E106E91.8080208@debian.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4E106E91.8080208@debian.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Luk Claes wrote: > Yes, just return UINT_MAX. Fix the other error return too, the one where > uname fails. And put in a comment if you can briefly summarize Linus's > argument. I thought that a real error like uname failing should still get the 'wrong' return 0, no? No. As I read it, Linus argues that you should only run the backward compatibility code path when you know you're running an older kernel. If you don't know, then you should assume you're running a newer kernel.