on 08/04/2011 05:16 Garrett Cooper said the following: > Yeah. It seems like something else like EINVAL (just an example -- > probably a bad one) would be better. Also, please be careful as > returning ENODEV seems to be UFS-specific:
I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. See intro(2) or grep the sources. > > The following errors can occur for a ufs file system mount: > > [ENODEV] A component of ufs_args fspec does not exist. That documented specific use of ENODEV in UFS doesn't make ENODEV UFS-specific. Besides I don't ENODEV anywhere under sys/ufs. > Also, Tom Rhodes has a similar change to what I suggested on the > backburner, but it hasn't been 100% fleshed out yet. I like that approach too. It has its advantages. But I don't give up yet on my suggestion. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
