On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:01 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 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?
>
The printk is also wrong, It should have been, Invalid ioctl for the
device
-
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
