> > > > Not generally due to the long-standing murky issue of whether > > adding new Solaris specific errno values is a thing we do or not. > > Looking at errno.h, I see some recent additions -- e.g. extended > accounting added ENOTACTIVE, and a number of error codes were added for > robust mutexes. So there seems to be precedent. (I understand that we > are stuck with at most 151 error codes from now until another major > release, and thus need to be cautious -- but if push came to shove > someday, I'd hope we could recycle ENOANO and other useless junk ;-) > > > But personally I have no issue with that. > > Cool. To be clear, we're not in a position to make these changes right > now, so there's plenty of time to discuss this.
I'm all for it. But do not justify anything you ever do based on "robust" mutexes and Dan Stein :) > > Do you have an example? i.e. what fault was diagnosed? > > For instance, per 6664330, there was a PCI express fault > [http://sun.com/msg/PCIEX-8000-0A] in early December, but it went > unnoticed and the networking device continued to be used without incident > (until the eventual upgrade to build 83). Can we get the fm errlog for that or equivalent problem? I can't tell what is going on there other than we got an error interrupt from that piece of hardware. We need the errlog for likely root cause. -Mike -- Mike Shapiro, Solaris Kernel Development. blogs.sun.com/mws/
