From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.goop.org (gw.goop.org [64.81.55.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.goop.org", Issuer "Goop.org CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7F5DDFAF for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 05:05:28 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <468E8B07.2030404@goop.org> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:33:43 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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; format=flowed Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux/PPC Development , Linux Kernel Development , Hiroaki Fuse , "H. Peter Anvin" 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) > But it *isn't* a typewriter. Of course, it's not a giraffe either. J