On 17/08/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 19:18 +0200, Anton Arapov wrote:
> >
> > IPC code is good, EIDRM is justification of EINVAL. But neither SVr4 nor
> > SVID \
> > documents EIDRM. Single Unix Specification mentions EINVAL but not EIDRM
> > as
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 19:18 +0200, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> IPC code is good, EIDRM is justification of EINVAL. But neither SVr4 nor
> SVID \
> documents EIDRM. Single Unix Specification mentions EINVAL but not EIDRM as
> a \
> possible failure for shmctl(), so the current kernel behavior
Hi!
* Please, gurus, who cares about standards conformance, do not ignore this
message!
SysV code returns EIDRM for collision of IDs. I sure it should return EINVAL.
Steps to reproduce: (this for shared memory code, for msg/sem it is the same)
1. Create then drop 2 shmem segments, then
Hi!
* Please, gurus, who cares about standards conformance, do not ignore this
message!
SysV code returns EIDRM for collision of IDs. I sure it should return EINVAL.
Steps to reproduce: (this for shared memory code, for msg/sem it is the same)
1. Create then drop 2 shmem segments, then
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 19:18 +0200, Anton Arapov wrote:
IPC code is good, EIDRM is justification of EINVAL. But neither SVr4 nor
SVID \
documents EIDRM. Single Unix Specification mentions EINVAL but not EIDRM as
a \
possible failure for shmctl(), so the current kernel behavior is not
On 17/08/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 19:18 +0200, Anton Arapov wrote:
IPC code is good, EIDRM is justification of EINVAL. But neither SVr4 nor
SVID \
documents EIDRM. Single Unix Specification mentions EINVAL but not EIDRM
as a \
possible
6 matches
Mail list logo
