Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:12:48 +0100 From: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> To: Chin-San Huang <chinsan@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/arch-handbook/driverbasics chapter.sgml Message-ID: <469B7CE0.8030409@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070716135602.7EF3816A49C@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20070716135602.7EF3816A49C@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Chin-San Huang wrote: > chinsan 2007-07-16 13:55:59 UTC > > FreeBSD doc repository > > Modified files: > en_US.ISO8859-1/books/arch-handbook/driverbasics chapter.sgml > Log: > - According to the module(9) man page, the return value for > unrecognized values is EOPNOTSUPP, not EINVAL. > > Noticed by: kevlo 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." -- Florent Thoumie flz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD Committer [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGm3zlMxEkbVFH3PQRCoKpAKCHrnpoqbadhGjFAQ+9f36Q6tG8pwCfS9IB leVkXhAHpabEG5kvVFPimfw= =RP8I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?469B7CE0.8030409>