[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49B3176A.7000004@imap.cc>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:55:06 +0100
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC: davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
Hansjoerg Lipp <hjlipp@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gigaset: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented functions
Am 08.03.2009 01:35 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:22:28 +0100
> Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc> wrote:
>
>> Am 07.03.2009 23:26 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
[...]
>>> ENODEV is what would be more appropriate.
>> Not at all. ENODEV means "no such device", which would be quite wrong.
>> The device does exist and is in all probability working perfectly
>> fine. It just doesn't implement that particular ioctl.
>
> then -ENOTTY is the right answer
Interesting, though slightly surprising proposition.
"Not a typewriter" is certainly correct. :-)
"Not a tty device", however, which I take is the customary
interpretation, much less clearly so. The device most certainly
is a tty device. It just happens to know a few additional ioctl
commands which may or may not be implemented, depending on the
kernel config.
Not to question your authority, but I would really like a second
opinion on that issue before I adopt your proposition, simply to
minimize the risk of getting another objection from someone else
who feels that ENOTTY is inappropriate in that situation.
Thanks,
Tilman
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (255 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists