Re: new errno ?

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

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."