Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP

["Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@gmail.com>]

On 12/6/06, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> That's largely already the case, mostly because there is unfortunately
> still a fair bit of rubber-stamping Solaris going on.

Don't say that, Peter.

I'm working on the committee now for many years and got most changes I
(and those telling me their wishes) wanted through.  This is very much
a technically oriented working group, not political.  In fact, of the
regular members there are more with stakes in Linux than any of the
other OSes combined.  If there are problems people perceive they can
file bugs on the OpenGroup's site
(http://www.opengroup.org/austin/defectform.html) or tell me about it.

About the issue at hand: if the original poster would have taken the
time to investigate the issue he would have seen that this topic was
discussed (I think we handled it in September in Reading).  See

http://www.opengroup.org/austin/aardvark/latest/xbdbug2.txt

The statement about the interpretations track means that the change
will be made to the current standard, not only the next revision.

There is no need to change anything in kernel or libc.  Code using
both values in a switch statement is out of luck but a) this is really
really rare (nobody should reimplement strerror) and b) can be easily
fixed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/