From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1032223AbWLGNt0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:49:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1032224AbWLGNt0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:49:26 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:32810 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1032223AbWLGNtZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:49:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:49:14 -0500 From: Theodore Tso To: Samuel Thibault , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP Message-ID: <20061207134914.GB31773@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Samuel Thibault , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20061206135134.GJ3927@implementation.labri.fr> <1165415115.3233.449.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20061206143159.GP3927@implementation.labri.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061206143159.GP3927@implementation.labri.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 03:31:59PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Ok, so Linux will never be fully posix compliant. ? Can you please quote chapter and verse (in POSIX) where it states that ENOTSUP and EOPNOTSUP have to be numerically distinct? If you are reading Unix 98 you might be able to make a claim that there is an implication that they be assigned unique error numbers, but it's at best an implication, not an explicitly specified requirement in any of the standards documents that I'm aware of. To folks who are participating in the committee doing work on the upcoming POSIX revisions (which might make this a requirement to be imposed on us in a year or two) --- will that likely impose such a requirement? In that case we might want to start thinking about separating the two, but it really is a question of is the benefits are worth the effort. - Ted