tech-kern archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: new errno ?
The DOMAIN and RANGE errno values are not really used outside
floating-point code, and are...conceptually appropriate...to
many other kinds of problems.
Thor
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:59:12PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Eitan Adler <lists%eitanadler.com@localhost> wrote:
> >
> > For those interested in some of the history:
> > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2003-May/000791.html <https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2003-May/000791.html>
>
> ...and the subsequent thread went just as I expected it might. Sigh.
>
> Anyway... in what situations is this absurd error code used in the 802.11 code? EFAULT seems wrong because it means something very specific. Actually, that brings me to a bigger point... rather than having a generic error code for "lulz I could have panic'd here, heh", why not simply return an error code appropriate for the situation that would have otherwise resulted in calling panic()? There are many to choose from :-)
>
> -- thorpej
>
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls%panix.com@localhost
"The two most common variations translate as follows:
illegitimi non carborundum = the unlawful are not silicon carbide
illegitimis non carborundum = the unlawful don't have silicon carbide."
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Old Index