On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 11:55 -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 10:58:45AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > I don't see a valid reason to restrict/reject input that is accepted > > now and dealt with reasonably because some standard says so (if you > > design a new api, following the standard is nice of course). I don't > > see "doesn't reject a condition that can reasonable be dealt with" > > as a good reason to go double ABI at all. > > we could printk for now and if nobody reports this to lkml (as they > do/did with oldish tcpdump/libpcap a while ago) we could -EINVAL >
but why???? if someone wants the stuff rejected in a posix confirm way, he can do these tests easily in the syscall wrapper he needs anyway for this function. - 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/
