Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gigaset: return -ENOSYS for unimplemented functions

From: Tilman Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:55:06 +0100

Am 08.03.2009 01:35 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:22:28 +0100
> Tilman Schmidt <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> Am 07.03.2009 23:26 schrieb Arjan van de Ven:
[...]
>>> ENODEV is what would be more appropriate.
>> Not at all. ENODEV means "no such device", which would be quite wrong.
>> The device does exist and is in all probability working perfectly
>> fine. It just doesn't implement that particular ioctl.
> 
> then -ENOTTY is the right answer

Interesting, though slightly surprising proposition.
"Not a typewriter" is certainly correct. :-)

"Not a tty device", however, which I take is the customary
interpretation, much less clearly so. The device most certainly
is a tty device. It just happens to know a few additional ioctl
commands which may or may not be implemented, depending on the
kernel config.

Not to question your authority, but I would really like a second
opinion on that issue before I adopt your proposition, simply to
minimize the risk of getting another objection from someone else
who feels that ENOTTY is inappropriate in that situation.

Thanks,
Tilman

-- 
Tilman Schmidt                    E-Mail: [email-masked]
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)