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: <20061207134914.GB31773@thunk.org>
Date:	Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:49:14 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> 
> Ok, so Linux will never be fully posix compliant.

?

Can you please quote chapter and verse (in POSIX) where it states that
ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUP have to be numerically distinct?  If you are
reading Unix 98 you might be able to make a claim that there is an
implication that they be assigned unique error numbers, but it's at
best an implication, not an explicitly specified requirement in any of
the standards documents that I'm aware of.

To folks who are participating in the committee doing work on the
upcoming POSIX revisions (which might make this a requirement to be
imposed on us in a year or two) --- will that likely impose such a
requirement?  In that case we might want to start thinking about
separating the two, but it really is a question of is the benefits are
worth the effort.

						- Ted
-
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/