Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:46:20 +0800 From: chinsan <chinsan.tw@gmail.com> To: "Florent Thoumie" <flz@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/arch-handbook/driverbasics chapter.sgml Message-ID: <1f27304c0707170746j53a273c3n9e5b34612098dd79@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <469B7CE0.8030409@FreeBSD.org> References: <20070716135602.7EF3816A49C@hub.freebsd.org> <469B7CE0.8030409@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/16/07, Florent Thoumie <flz@freebsd.org> wrote: > Chin-San Huang wrote: > > chinsan 2007-07-16 13:55:59 UTC > > - According to the module(9) man page, the return value for > > unrecognized values is EOPNOTSUPP, not EINVAL. > > Using both EINVAL and EOPNOTSUPP makes sense to me. In the arch-handbook > code snippet we return EOPNOTSUPP whether what is MOD_QUIESCE or an > invalid value. > > I understand it's done that way for simplicity's sake (instead of adding > a case statement for unsupported operations and default to return > EINVAL), but there's an inconsistency with module(9). > > It currently says: > > "The module should return EOPNOTSUPP for unrecognized values of what" > > Maybe something like the following would be better: > > "The module should return EOPNOTSUPP for unsupported and unrecognized > values of what." Hi, Please feel free to document that part. :) - chinsan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1f27304c0707170746j53a273c3n9e5b34612098dd79>