I was surmising something like that, but in that case aren't
ENOIOCTLCMD and ENOTTY redundant? That is, could not every occurrence
of ENOIOCTLCMD be replaced by ENOTTY with no change in function?
That's what's confusing me: why the distinction? It's true that the
current scheme allows the dev->ioctlfunc() call below to force ENOTTY
to be returned, bypassing the switch, but presumably that's not what
one wants.
> int err = dev->ioctlfunc(dev, op, arg);
> if( err != -ENOIOCTLCMD)
> return err;
>
> /* Driver specific code does not support this ioctl */
>
> switch(op)
> {
>
> ...
> default:
> return -ENOTTY;
> }
>
>Its a way of passing back 'you handle it'
>-
>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/
-- /Jonathan Lundell. - 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/