[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4576F368.4070804@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:44:24 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP
Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 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;
> }
>
That's pretty weak, though.
-hpa
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists