Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 13 May 2001 10:48:42 -0700 | From | Jonathan Lundell <> | Subject | Re: ENOIOCTLCMD? |
| |
At 5:45 PM +0100 2001-05-13, Alan Cox wrote: > > 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. > >On the contrary. I can now no longer force an unsupported response when there >is a generic routine I dont wish to use
That makes sense. Thanks. -- /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/
|  |