[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
At 5:43 PM +0100 2001-05-12, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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.

What I was arguing (conceptually) is that something like


or preferably but more invasively s/ENOIOCTLCMD/ENOTTY/ (mutatis mutandis)

would result in no loss of function. I assert that ENOIOCTLCMD is
redundant, pending a specific counterexample.
/Jonathan Lundell.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.053 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site