Re: ENOATTR vs ENODATA

[Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>]

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:54:44AM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> In that case, I would suggest patching the kernel and let it return 
> ENODATA. The API was never usable, no risk of making a mess of it. It 
> would just need adjustements in documentation.
> 
> bt code that uses ENOATTR stays unharmed, and the extended att. API 
> stays closer to the Linux one.

This has my vote as well.

Martin