Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754535AbZCHBh6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753509AbZCHBhq (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:46 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:57603 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752885AbZCHBhq (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:46 -0500 Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 17:38:19 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Tilman Schmidt Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Paul Bolle , Hansjoerg Lipp Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gigaset: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented functions Message-ID: <20090307173819.36d352c8@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <49B3176A.7000004@imap.cc> References: <20090307-patch-00.tilman@imap.cc> <20090307-patch-01.tilman@imap.cc> <20090307142609.2995bb3d@infradead.org> <49B30FC4.5040305@imap.cc> <20090307163522.1165494b@infradead.org> <49B3176A.7000004@imap.cc> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1764 Lines: 50 On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:55:06 +0100 Tilman Schmidt wrote: > Am 08.03.2009 01:35 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > > On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:22:28 +0100 > > Tilman Schmidt 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. from the ioctl manpage: ERRORS [snip] ENOTTY The specified request does not apply to the kind of object that the descriptor d references. -- 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/