Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ENOIOCTLCMD? | Date | Sat, 12 May 2001 17:43:44 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> That's what's confusing me: why the distinction? It's true that the > current scheme allows the dev->ioctlfunc() call below to force ENOTTY > to be returned, bypassing the switch, but presumably that's not what > one wants.
It allows driver specific code to override generic code, including by reporting that a given feature is not available/appropriate.
Alan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |