[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091015160109.6d9353e8@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:01:09 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove or convert empty ioctls ?
> "no particular value" is highly subjective, and I think unprovable,
> without an exhaustive survey of userland programs interacting with
> kernel drivers. Userland programs often interact with a -class- of
> drivers, expecting predictable behavior from a DoThisThing ioctl, with
> EINVAL or "other weird error code" returned intentionally.
>
> Changing the return codes seems quite unwise.
We've changed lots of them to -ENOTTY over the past few years, nobody has
even noticed (you included ;))
SuS says an unknown ioctl code returns -ENOTTY.
Alan
--
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