On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > default:
> > > > printk("%s: Unimplemented ioctl 0x%x\n", tape->name, cmd);
> > > > + unlock_kernel();
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > Surely a bug ... shouldn't this return -ENOTTY?
> Agreed - ENOTTY.
Just out of curiosity, where does POSIX happen to specify ENOTTY as the
correct one for unimplemented ioctl?
--
Jiri Kosina
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
