Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
To: Matt Thomas <>
From: Brian Ginsbach <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/15/2006 15:36:56
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 08:03:22PM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
> Brian Ginsbach wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:48:02PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> >> While I don't think EAFNOTSUPPORT is the right error (we have EPFNOSUPPORT 
> >> which man errno seems to say is right), it's much better than 
> >>
> > 
> > I agree but then we need convince IEEE and X/Open.  The current
> > standards have no concept of EPFNOSUPPORT.  Maybe if this would
> > have been fixed long ago by the CSRG, IEEE and X/Open would have
> > had the right errno to begin with.  As it stands now I think we
> > need to live with the admittedly poorer EAFNOSUPPORT.

What?  Where are you proposing doing this?  You certainly can't do
it in errno.h as EAFNOSUPPORT currently means something very
different from EPFNOSUPPORT (internally anyway).  I think doing
this would just create all sorts of other problems.  Several
SUS systems still have separate values for EPFNOSUPPORT and

Quoting from the original thread on tech-net:

On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 06:09:46PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 09:34:59 -0400, Sean Boudreau wrote:
> > POSIX says EAFNOSUPPORT and has no concept of EPFNOSUPPORT.
> Well, POSIX doesn't have PF_ constants either.  We nominally
> distinguish PF_ and AF_ though they have identical numeric values, but
> EPFNOSUPPORT and EAFNOSUPPORT have different numeric values, thus we
> have an interesting problem here (posixly correct vs internally
> consistent).
> Anyway, my reading of the
> is that
> unsupported arguments should be reported as:
> domain   - EAFNOSUPPORT
> type     - EPROTOTYPE

I think this summarizes the situation nicely.