linux-kernel - Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061206161405.GV3927@implementation.labri.fr>
Date:	Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:14:05 +0100
From:	Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

H. Peter Anvin, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 07:35:49 -0800, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >>The two can't be done at the same time.  In fact, the two probably can't 
> >>be done without a period of quite a few *years* between them.
> >
> >Not a reason for not doing it ;)
> 
> No, but breakage is.  There has to be a major benefit to justify the 
> cost, and you, at least, have not provided such a justification.

Well, as I said, existing code like

switch(errno) {
	case ENOTSUP:
		foo();
		break;
	case EOPNOTSUP:
		bar();
		break;
}

Samuel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/