Re: SVr4/SVID/SUS IPC conformance

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 merely \
> self-inconsistent but a flat violation of the spec. 

these specs tend to always allow additional error codes.


-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SVr4/SVID/SUS IPC conformance
    • From: "Jesper Juhl" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • SVr4/SVID/SUS IPC conformance
    • From: Anton Arapov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add scaled time to taskstats based process accounting
• Previous by thread: SVr4/SVID/SUS IPC conformance
• Next by thread: Re: SVr4/SVID/SUS IPC conformance
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]