Re: ENOIOCTLCMD?

Jonathan Lundell (jlundell@pobox.com)
Sun, 13 May 2001 08:15:08 -0700

At 5:43 PM +0100 2001-05-12, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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.
>
>It allows driver specific code to override generic code, including
>by reporting
>that a given feature is not available/appropriate.
>
>Alan

What I was arguing (conceptually) is that something like

#define ENOIOCTLCMD ENOTTY

or preferably but more invasively s/ENOIOCTLCMD/ENOTTY/ (mutatis mutandis)

would result in no loss of function. I assert that ENOIOCTLCMD is
redundant, pending a specific counterexample.

-- 
/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/