Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:21:49 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, glebius@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fix return code for pipe(2) syscall Message-ID: <43DA64BD.2070805@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200601271724.k0RHOUat034301@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu> References: <200601271724.k0RHOUat034301@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman wrote: >In article <20060127093602.GO83922@cell.sick.ru> you write: > > > >>Yes, according to SUSv3 the only errors from pipe(2) are ENFILE >>and EMFILE. >> >> > >POSIX does not define an exhaustive enumeration of error conditions. >*Any* error return is permissible, provided only that *for those >conditions noted in the ERRORS section* the code identified for that >condition is returned. It is perfectly permissible for every system >call to fail with [ENOTADUCK] unless the first five bytes of the >caller's address space contain the word "quack". > > > I like it. We should implement this asap. >-GAWollman > >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43DA64BD.2070805>