On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:06:21AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 02.05.16 at 10:55, wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:22:35AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> But how would that help you? Would you mean to monitor future
> >> patches for not again introducing some use of ENODATA that the
>
>>> On 02.05.16 at 10:55, wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:22:35AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> But how would that help you? Would you mean to monitor future
>> patches for not again introducing some use of ENODATA that the
>> tool stack wants to explicitly check for? That would be quite tediou
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:22:35AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.04.16 at 18:52, wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:42:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 29.04.16 at 18:34, wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:19:41AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 29.04.16 at 17:
>>> On 29.04.16 at 18:52, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:42:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 29.04.16 at 18:34, wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:19:41AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 29.04.16 at 17:06, wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:44:48AM -0600, Jan Beuli
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:42:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.04.16 at 18:34, wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:19:41AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 29.04.16 at 17:06, wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:44:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 29.04.16 at 16:
>>> On 29.04.16 at 18:34, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:19:41AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 29.04.16 at 17:06, wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:44:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 29.04.16 at 16:21, wrote:
>> >> > According to the POSIX standard for error codes [0]
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:19:41AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.04.16 at 17:06, wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:44:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 29.04.16 at 16:21, wrote:
> >> > According to the POSIX standard for error codes [0], ENODATA is both
> >> > obsolescent (so
>>> On 29.04.16 at 17:06, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:44:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 29.04.16 at 16:21, wrote:
>> > According to the POSIX standard for error codes [0], ENODATA is both
>> > obsolescent (so it may be removed in the future) and optional.
>>
>> It being optiona
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:44:48AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.04.16 at 16:21, wrote:
> > According to the POSIX standard for error codes [0], ENODATA is both
> > obsolescent (so it may be removed in the future) and optional.
>
> It being optional still doesn't preclude us using it.
>
>>> On 29.04.16 at 16:21, wrote:
> According to the POSIX standard for error codes [0], ENODATA is both
> obsolescent (so it may be removed in the future) and optional.
It being optional still doesn't preclude us using it.
> Replace it's
> usage with ENOENT, which seems like the closest match. B
10 matches
Mail list logo