From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 13 04:01:40 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42BB37B401
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 13 May 2003 04:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from peedub.jennejohn.org (p213.54.192.218.tisdip.tiscali.de
	[213.54.192.218])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CEF43F85
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 13 May 2003 04:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from garyj@jennejohn.org)
Received: from peedub.jennejohn.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by peedub.jennejohn.org (8.12.9/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4DB1SKo005541;
	Tue, 13 May 2003 13:01:29 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from garyj@peedub.jennejohn.org)
Message-Id: <200305131101.h4DB1SKo005541@peedub.jennejohn.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: Message from Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> 
	<4.3.2.7.2.20030513102353.02ab02d0@gid.co.uk> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:01:28 +0200
From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@jennejohn.org>
cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@apple.com>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for better errno values... 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 11:01:41 -0000


Bob Bishop writes:
> Hi,
> 
> At 09:57 13/5/03, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> >[stuff]
> >#define EDOOFUS         88              /* Programming error */
> >[more stuff]
> 
> Before the noise becomes unbearable, I have a question:
> 
> Why isn't EINVAL appropriate to the case in question?
> 

If you look at the 4 places where it's in the tree it's pretty clear that
returning EDOOFUS is meant to rub the programmer's nose in a coding error
(recursive malloc() calls, etc).

At least the error string ("Programming error") is reasonable.

I agree that the name isnt' too happily chosen and should be changed to
something more neutral before it shows up in more places in the tree.

---
Gary Jennejohn / garyj@jennejohn.org gj@freebsd.org gj@denx.de