On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:17:52PM -0400, Robert Story wrote: > I was inclined to agree until I took a look at the code in question. We've > gone from setting an error for (rc < 0), to (rc == 0) and now (rc != 0). This > looks like either people don't know what they are doing, or the error > condition varies by os/kernel version.
Correct. The function has all the time been documented as returning zero for ok. At some point in time somebody has used it with incorrect checks for ok returns. I have been over all uses and the complete code to make sure all agrees on the head documentation. To make things even more complicated it could even return an uninitialized status code. /Niels -- Niels Baggesen - @home - Århus - Denmark - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers --- R W Hamming ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
