From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [192.83.249.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A29DDF24 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 03:48:35 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <468E8064.6000107@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:48:20 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Too verbose compat_ioctl messages? References: <468E6E33.3040000@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux/PPC Development , Linux Kernel Development , Hiroaki Fuse List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Andi Kleen wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" writes: >> For one thing, it looks like we're returning the wrong thing (EINVAL >> rather than ENOTTY) across the board. This was unfortunately a common >> misunderstanding with non-tty-related ioctls in the early days of Linux. > > ENOTTY is so excessively misnamed that it is actually surprising > anybody ever got that "right" (for very small values of right i guess) > No argument there. -hpa