At 12:16 PM +0100 2001-05-12, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Can somebody explain the use of ENOIOCTLCMD? There are order of 170
>> uses in the kernel, but I don't see any guidelines for that use (nor
>> what prevents it from being seen by user programs).
>
>It should never be seen by apps. If it can be then it is wrong code.
>Basically you use it in things like
I was surmising something like that, but in that case aren't
ENOIOCTLCMD and ENOTTY redundant? That is, could not every occurrence
of ENOIOCTLCMD be replaced by ENOTTY with no change in function?
That's what's confusing me: why the distinction? It's true that the
current scheme allows the dev->ioctlfunc() call below to force ENOTTY
to be returned, bypassing the switch, but presumably that's not what
one wants.
> int err = dev->ioctlfunc(dev, op, arg);
> if( err != -ENOIOCTLCMD)
> return err;
>
> /* Driver specific code does not support this ioctl */
>
> switch(op)
> {
>
> ...
> default:
> return -ENOTTY;
> }
>
>Its a way of passing back 'you handle it'
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
/Jonathan Lundell.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
