Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:44:58 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org>, jlemon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: changing EINVAL for SIOCSIFCAP to something else Message-ID: <20060227094458.GH6435@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20060227093431.GX55275@cell.sick.ru> References: <20060227083815.GW55275@cell.sick.ru> <20060227091417.GF6435@comp.chem.msu.su> <20060227083815.GW55275@cell.sick.ru> <4402C09C.C3FB0064@freebsd.org> <20060227093431.GX55275@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:34:31PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Andre, Yar, > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:04:28AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > A> > I prefer this variant: > A> > > A> > if (ifp->if_ioctl == NULL) > A> > return (ENOTTY); > A> > if (ifr->ifr_reqcap & ~ifp->if_capabilities) > A> > return (ENODEV); > A> > > A> > Any objections? [...] > Y> I'm afraid that this is a case when EINVAL is used properly: an > Y> argument to ioctl doesn't make sense to a particular device. It's > Y> true that EINVAL may be abused in other places though. I wish each > Y> EINVAL being returned to the userland were accompanied by log(). > > I don't agree. EINVAL can logically fit to almost any error condition. We > should fine error codes fitting better. If "ioctl doesn't make sense to a > particular device", then we should say "Operation not supported by device", > which is ENODEV. You see, it isn't ioctl itself that doesn't make sense to the device, it's a single argument, ifr_reqcap. That was my point. Of course, I won't insist on it because the traditional errno is getting very limited under the present conditions anyway. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060227094458.GH6435>