lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ENOIOCTLCMD?
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.
>
>Alan

What I was arguing (conceptually) is that something like

#define ENOIOCTLCMD ENOTTY

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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.050 / U:4.648 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site