> On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 at 05:20:52PM +1000, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > Didn't someone say Unix98 defines EFAULT? So it looks like we can
> > herdly blow it away.
>
> That may have been me... but its not that Unix98 defines EFAULT, but
> rather defines what EFAULT means if you happen to get one.
>
> As hpa has pointer out, EFAULT is not _required_ when you pass a
> bogus pointer - but then again, neither is a segfault.
There are a lot of behaviours that aren't actually *required*
for compliance. Success isn't always required. In many cases
we could just return one of the possible errors and avoid having
to do all the work to implement the expected behaviour.
This thread is getting surreal :-).
Mike
-- .----------------------------------------------------------------------. | Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk | | Roan Technology Ltd. | | | 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 | | RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 | `----------------------------------------------------------------------'
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html