Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:35:02 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Nick Hibma <nick.hibma@jrc.it> Cc: Nick Hibma <hibma@skylink.it>, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Doug Rabson <dfr@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD current Mailing list <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: priorities Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905210933450.509-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990521102141.8523S-100000@elect8>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > #define PRIORITY_FAIL -1 > > > > > > It sounds like we can loads of haggling about the names there... The > > > last one is to take out the dependency on errno being greater than > > > zero. > > > > I would actually quite like to keep the possibility of returning an errno. > > It gives the possibility of returning an appropriate error if something > > strange happened (other than the hardware not being present). > > > How do you guarantuee that the errno is positive? Add an assert > somewhere, like checking whether ENXIO >= PRIORITY_FAIL? They just are positive and have always been positive :-) Changing that (making errnos negative) would break so much code I don't even want to think about it. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9905210933450.509-100000>