The DOMAIN and RANGE errno values are not really used outside floating-point code, and are...conceptually appropriate...to many other kinds of problems.
Thor On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 03:59:12PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote: > > > > On Jul 6, 2018, at 2:49 PM, Eitan Adler <li...@eitanadler.com> wrote: > > > > For those interested in some of the history: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2003-May/000791.html > > <https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2003-May/000791.html> > > ...and the subsequent thread went just as I expected it might. Sigh. > > Anyway... in what situations is this absurd error code used in the 802.11 > code? EFAULT seems wrong because it means something very specific. > Actually, that brings me to a bigger point... rather than having a generic > error code for "lulz I could have panic'd here, heh", why not simply return > an error code appropriate for the situation that would have otherwise > resulted in calling panic()? There are many to choose from :-) > > -- thorpej > -- Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.com "The two most common variations translate as follows: illegitimi non carborundum = the unlawful are not silicon carbide illegitimis non carborundum = the unlawful don't have silicon carbide."
