On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:10:36 -0600 Michael Witten wrote: > )On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:00, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:32:50 +0000 > > Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> + <para> > >> + For code called in user context, errors are reported via > >> + return values rather than through something like C's 'errno'; > > > > "Errno" is not used regardless of whether a function is called from > > process context; bringing it in here can only create confusion. > > I was trying to keep the same spirit of the original introductory text. > > Moreover, it is important to note that 'errno' is not just brought up, > but explicitly pointed out: > > > **rather than** through **something like** Yes, and if it weren't already there, I wouldn't care for a patch that added it. But this patch doesn't add it per se. > Bringing up 'errno' in this way explicitly highlights a confusion that > may already exist due to the kernel's variation on error number usage. There should have been no expectation that kernel internal calls would ever use some kind of errno convention in the first place IMO. Added patch to my patch queue. --- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
