On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:01:44 +0100 (CET)
Jiri Kosina <jikos@xxxxxxxx> 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?
I don't know if POSIX does, but Unix has always used ENOTTY for "I don't
know what this ioctl is" and -EINVAL "for I know what this ioctl is but
the values passed are stupid"
-
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
