Subject: Re: bin/7249
To: Erik E. Fair <email@example.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/16/2000 03:26:49
> This PR begs a question:
> should every system call manual page list every possible
> error that can be returned by that call?
> For example, this means that any system call dealing with a
> descriptor (file, socket, whatever) would need to list all filesystem
> error codes, plus all socket (network) error codes, and so on. It
> would be a fairly exhaustive list.
Not exactly. "read" will never return EROFS or EPROTONOSUPPORT unless
a driver is playing games with us..
> If we decide "yes" then we need to go through section 2 pretty thoroughly.
> The alternative is to list the error codes in one place, and give a
> general description of when to expect them, with pointers to the
> right subset from each system call man page.
we certainly shouldn't rip out the errno descriptions from the
existing manual pages -- EINVAL means different things for different
syscalls. What's there already should not be removed. Maybe a
semi-boilerplate "additional error codes may be returned, see
driver/filesystem/protocol-family-specific man page for details".
> Or we could just say UTSL with a pointer to /usr/include/errno.h