Hi Florian, On 2026-04-27T15:29:30+0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Alejandro Colomar: > > > Hi Florian, > > > > On 2026-04-27T12:34:30+0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Alejandro Colomar: > >> > >> > [CC += libc-alpha] > >> > > >> > Hi Dorjoy, > >> > > >> > On 2026-04-26T17:14:25+0600, Dorjoy Chowdhury wrote: > >> >> Signed-off-by: Dorjoy Chowdhury > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > Reviewed-by: Alejandro Colomar > >> > > >> > I will wait until glibc adds this error code to their before > >> > applying the patch. This means either you should write and send a patch > >> > to glibc (if so, please CC me), or you should ask them to add it > >> > themselves (if you're not comfortable writing glibc code). > >> > >> I'm not sure where this is coming from. > > > > Here's a link to the thread: > > > > > >> POSIX says EFTYPE was rejected > >> in favor of ENOTTY. > > > > Could you please share a link to that? > > > > Anyway, I guess ENOTTY would be inappropriate in this case. Although > > maybe a better error code could be devised; I don't know. This is why > > I wanted glibc involved in this discussion before this arrives to a > > Linux release. Thanks for the quick feedback! > > It's in the Rationale for System Interfaces: > > “ > [EFTYPE] > This error code was proposed in earlier proposals as "Inappropriate > operation for file type", meaning that the operation requested is > not appropriate for the file specified in the function call. This > code was proposed, although the same idea was covered by [ENOTTY], > because the connotations of the name would be misleading. It was > pointed out that the fcntl() function uses the error code [EINVAL] > for this notion, and hence all instances of [EFTYPE] were changed to > this code. > ” > > I replied on linux-fsdevel, too. Thanks! > > (It would be nice to submit patches introducing new error codes to > linux-api with a subject mentioning the error code.) Thanks! I'll remember this advice for when receiving patches that add error codes. > > Thanks, > Florian Cheers, Alex --