Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:22:37 +0200 (MET DST) From: Nick Hibma <nick.hibma@jrc.it> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: Nick Hibma <hibma@skylink.it>, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Doug Rabson <dfr@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD current Mailing list <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: priorities Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.990521102141.8523S-100000@elect8> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905210919380.509-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > #define PRIORITY_FAIL -1 > > > > It sounds like we can loads of haggling about the names there... The > > last one is to take out the dependency on errno being greater than > > zero. > > I would actually quite like to keep the possibility of returning an errno. > It gives the possibility of returning an appropriate error if something > strange happened (other than the hardware not being present). How do you guarantuee that the errno is positive? Add an assert somewhere, like checking whether ENXIO >= PRIORITY_FAIL? Nick -- ISIS/STA, T.P.270, Joint Research Centre, 21020 Ispra, Italy To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.95q.990521102141.8523S-100000>