Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:44:24 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP |
| |
Samuel Thibault wrote: > H. Peter Anvin, le Wed 06 Dec 2006 07:35:49 -0800, a écrit : >> Samuel Thibault wrote: >>>> The two can't be done at the same time. In fact, the two probably can't >>>> be done without a period of quite a few *years* between them. >>> Not a reason for not doing it ;) >> No, but breakage is. There has to be a major benefit to justify the >> cost, and you, at least, have not provided such a justification. > > Well, as I said, existing code like > > switch(errno) { > case ENOTSUP: > foo(); > break; > case EOPNOTSUP: > bar(); > break; > } >
That's pretty weak, though.
-hpa - 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/
| |