Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:59:54 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com>, FreeBSD Arch <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: On errno Message-ID: <p06240800c5fbf0372484@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <FE53FDC4-6416-458C-A10C-C2C70A085C83@mac.com> References: <8321954E-5CFF-45F9-9F87-BE83659E4C8D@mac.com> <FE53FDC4-6416-458C-A10C-C2C70A085C83@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 9:13 AM -0700 4/1/09, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >On Mar 30, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >>This begs the question: what is stopping us from adding new >>error codes? > >>>kientzle@ wrote: >>>POSIX does specify the range of allowable error codes >>>for a lot of system calls, but not all. In my experience, >>>straying outside of that causes more problems than it's >>>worth. > >I agree that well-known system calls should not be changed >willy-nilly. But what about error codes returned from GEOM >or other FreeBSD-specific subsystems? I'll make the observation that I've seen a lot of code which calls some system routine, checks the result, and if there was an error it just returns to the caller. Thus, a new errno from GEOM may show up as coming from routines which are not FreeBSD-specific. Now, that might be a fine thing to do. I'm just saying that we can not be sure that any new errno's will *only* show up as coming from routines that are unique to FreeBSD. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06240800c5fbf0372484>