Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 13 May 2001 08:15:08 -0700 | From | Jonathan Lundell <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |