Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 19:23:04 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Un-sucking EINVAL Message-ID: <bc073de5-1c4a-41e8-b163-fcbfc4fb9c8f@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <aC2Ap5ogfrlC-kHn@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> References: <aC0CgBBWrodf6pa8@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> <202505210722.54L7MTqw025632@critter.freebsd.dk> <aC2Ap5ogfrlC-kHn@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 21/05/2025 10:28, Lexi Winter wrote: > you are completely right. since we (for some reason, that i don't > really understand) can't add new error codes to errno, we should stop > using errno to indicate errors except where POSIX requires this. I once had this idea, probably not original, that if we usually use 32-bit variables to pass around error / status codes, then why not split up those bits for some special uses. E.g., lowest 10 or 12 bits could be actual error codes. But highest, say, 8 or 10 bits could encode a domain of interpretation (to use a term borrowed from IPsec). Domain number zero would be a POSIX or legacy domain and error codes in it would be the standard errno codes. Then we could have a different domain (or several) for FreeBSD-specific error codes. Some middle bits could be used to further subdivide a domain into modules or subsystems with their own error codes. There could be some private (application specific) domains. But, of course, a larger repertoire of error codes is still not as flexible and powerful as an ability to pass a specific error string along with an error code. -- Andriy Gaponhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bc073de5-1c4a-41e8-b163-fcbfc4fb9c8f>