Re: ENOIOCTLCMD?

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Sat, 12 May 2001 17:43:44 +0100 (BST)

> That's what's confusing me: why the distinction? It's true that the
> current scheme allows the dev->ioctlfunc() call below to force ENOTTY
> to be returned, bypassing the switch, but presumably that's not what
> one wants.

It allows driver specific code to override generic code, including by reporting
that a given feature is not available/appropriate.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/