Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:20:08 GMT From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/93705: [patch] ENODATA and EGREGIOUS (for glibc compat) Message-ID: <200603071020.k27AK8YX016306@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR kern/93705; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/93705: [patch] ENODATA and EGREGIOUS (for glibc compat) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:18:49 +0200 --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 07:50:05AM +0000, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:36:17PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > R> On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 02:35:48PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > R> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > R> > R> >Description: > R> > R> Please could you add ENODATA and EGREGIOUS errno codes for compa= tibility with > R> > R> Glibc systems? > R> > R>=20 > R> > R> They have the same meaning as ENOATTR and EDOOFUS, respectively. > R> > R>=20 > R> > R> As a side benefit, in the case of EDOOFUS this might be of inter= est to the Apple > R> > R> developers who complained about this macro name (i.e. they could= use EGREGIOUS in > R> > R> Darwin exclussively if they want). > R> >=20 > R> > The ENODATA error code is standardized as a part of XSI streams: > R> >=20 > R> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/basedefs/errno.h.html > R> >=20 > R> > I don't think we should hardcode it equal to ENOATTR, which is a BS= D specific > R> > code, afaik. > R>=20 > R> Linux uses ENODATA for no attribute errors, which afaik is the same a= s ENOATTR. > R>=20 > R> However since the XSI definition is more generic as you point out, pe= rhaps it'd > R> be better to rename ENOATTR to ENODATA and make ENOATTR an alias for = ENODATA > R> instead? > =20 > Pardon, but I do not properly understand the meaning of ENODATA in XSI s= treams > standard. That's why I am not sure, that ENODATA and ENOATTR can be made= equal > to each other. > =20 > P.S. I'm just expressing my humble opinion. I hope freebsd-standards mai= ling > list will make a decision. Okay, I could be *very* far off here, but... a couple of points natheless :) First, I wonder if the XSI STREAMS part of any standards actually apply to us - AFAIK, FreeBSD does not really implement STREAMS in any way, shape, or form. Second, ISTR that ENOATTR and ENODATA actually came into FreeBSD as part of the KAME project integration a long time ago, and then - not so long ago - ENODATA was *removed* since it was declared obsolete by the upstream KAME project. At least, that's the impression I got when it had to be removed or ifdef'd out of a couple of my ports :) Okay, so maybe that was not quite correct - I can't seem to find ENODATA mentioned anywhere in the src/sys/sys/errno.h CVS history, nor in the history of the ftp/curl or security/stunnel ports... so either this is all a whole lot of hot air due to my memory being jumbled beyond any hope, or I'm not remembering it exactly correct. Or maybe it was that ENODATA was never really defined in FreeBSD, because it was obsoleted by KAME at some point... or something... G'luck, Peter --=20 Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@cnsys.bg roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 This sentence contradicts itself - or rather - well, no, actually it doesn'= t! --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEDV4J7Ri2jRYZRVMRAs4oAKCcKtEG5a0Q23nhCoIWVAOx7xpw9QCePG1B jQTNuy0wJrKw71TTrFTOkEo= =URZX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FCuugMFkClbJLl1L--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200603071020.k27AK8YX016306>