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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 7 Dec 2006 07:33:08 -0800
From:	"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@...il.com>
To:	"Andreas Schwab" <schwab@...e.de>
Cc:	"Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

On 12/7/06, Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de> wrote:
> The quoted sentence is not shaded as an XSI extension, thus it is part of
> POSIX-1:2001.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.  The change I pointed at was
accepted to the interpretations track which means that if we would
create a Technical Corrigendum 3 for the 2001 standard (which we are
not) the relaxation for the error values would be added.  The current
situation is just as good, it's just as binding.  There is no need to
reissue the standard to make such changes.

So, put this issue to rest.  There is not issue.  The whole premise
for the original post is wrong these days.  There is no compliance
problem.
-
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/