kern/93705: [patch] ENODATA and EGREGIOUS (for glibc compat)
Gleb Smirnoff
glebius at FreeBSD.org
Sun Feb 26 23:50:06 PST 2006
The following reply was made to PR kern/93705; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius at FreeBSD.org>
To: Robert Millan <rmh at aybabtu.com>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org, Jordan Hubbard <jkh at apple.com>
Subject: Re: kern/93705: [patch] ENODATA and EGREGIOUS (for glibc compat)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:43:54 +0300
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 07:36:17PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
R> On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 02:35:48PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
R> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:53:56PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
R> > R> >Description:
R> > R> Please could you add ENODATA and EGREGIOUS errno codes for compatibility with
R> > R> Glibc systems?
R> > R>
R> > R> They have the same meaning as ENOATTR and EDOOFUS, respectively.
R> > R>
R> > R> As a side benefit, in the case of EDOOFUS this might be of interest to the Apple
R> > R> developers who complained about this macro name (i.e. they could use EGREGIOUS in
R> > R> Darwin exclussively if they want).
R> >
R> > The ENODATA error code is standardized as a part of XSI streams:
R> >
R> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/basedefs/errno.h.html
R> >
R> > I don't think we should hardcode it equal to ENOATTR, which is a BSD specific
R> > code, afaik.
R>
R> Linux uses ENODATA for no attribute errors, which afaik is the same as ENOATTR.
R>
R> However since the XSI definition is more generic as you point out, perhaps it'd
R> be better to rename ENOATTR to ENODATA and make ENOATTR an alias for ENODATA
R> instead?
Pardon, but I do not properly understand the meaning of ENODATA in XSI streams
standard. That's why I am not sure, that ENODATA and ENOATTR can be made equal
to each other.
P.S. I'm just expressing my humble opinion. I hope freebsd-standards mailing
list will make a decision.
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
More information about the freebsd-standards
mailing list