cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/arch-handbook/driverbasics chapter.sgml

[chinsan]

On 7/16/07, Florent Thoumie <flz at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Chin-San Huang wrote:
> > chinsan     2007-07-16 13:55:59 UTC
> >   - According to the module(9) man page, the return value for
> >     unrecognized values is EOPNOTSUPP, not EINVAL.
>
> Using both EINVAL and EOPNOTSUPP makes sense to me. In the arch-handbook
> code snippet we return EOPNOTSUPP whether what is MOD_QUIESCE or an
> invalid value.
>
> I understand it's done that way for simplicity's sake (instead of adding
> a case statement for unsupported operations and default to return
> EINVAL), but there's an inconsistency with module(9).
>
> It currently says:
>
> "The module should return EOPNOTSUPP for unrecognized values of what"
>
> Maybe something like the following would be better:
>
> "The module should return EOPNOTSUPP for unsupported and unrecognized
> values of what."

Hi,
Please feel free to document that part. :)

- chinsan