Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 16:35:22 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>, Hansjoerg Lipp <hjlipp@web.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gigaset: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented functions
Message-ID: <20090307163522.1165494b@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <49B30FC4.5040305@imap.cc>
References: <20090307-patch-00.tilman@imap.cc>
	<20090307-patch-01.tilman@imap.cc>
	<20090307142609.2995bb3d@infradead.org>
	<49B30FC4.5040305@imap.cc>
Organization: Intel
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1253
Lines: 32

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:22:28 +0100
Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:

> Am 07.03.2009 23:26 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
> > On Sat,  7 Mar 2009 23:10:57 +0100 (CET)
> > Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
> >>
> >> A number of functions in the usb_gigaset module will return
> >> -EINVAL if CONFIG_GIGASET_UNDOCREQ is not set. Make these return
> >> -ENOSYS as it's more specific and it might make it easier to see
> >> (from userspace) why these functions actually fail.
> >>
> >> Impact: some error return codes changed
> > 
> > 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
-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/