Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:35:39 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, dfr@FreeBSD.ORG, hibma@skylink.it, nick.hibma@jrc.it, peter@netplex.com.au Subject: Re: priorities Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905211034570.509-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <199905210917.TAA09318@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: > >> >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. > >> > >> >From errno.h: > >> > >> #ifdef KERNEL > >> /* pseudo-errors returned inside kernel to modify return to process */ > >> #define ERESTART (-1) /* restart syscall */ > >> #define EJUSTRETURN (-2) /* don't modify regs, just return */ > >> #define ENOIOCTL (-3) /* ioctl not handled by this layer */ > >> #endif > > > >They aren't real errnos, just signals to the kernel. > > Same as all other error codes in the kernel. What I meant was that they are not real error conditions and as such will not be returned from the device probe methods so there isn't a problem. -- 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.4.05.9905211034570.509-100000>