On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger <[email protected]> wrote: > > I see. I really don't like the extra callback. Currently, it seems > overkill to me. In principle, we could also do some checks in the device > open function, if needed. >
ack, I'll prepare a v2 patch soon. > > I found some links on that subject. Obviously, there is ENOTSUP and > EOPNOTSUPP in the glibc, which are equal, but no ENOTSUPP. I tend to > replace ENOTSUPP with EOPNOTSUPP, EINVAL or ENOSYS, what ever is more > appropriate. Do you feel that EINVAL is more appropriate for the case above? > I'm perfectly ok with EOPNOTSUPP as you suggested. -- Christian Pellegrin, see http://www.evolware.org/chri/ "Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport which requires you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and Real Programmers wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly spring up in the middle of the computer room." _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
