Hi Mike >> > 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 :)
Introducing a new error code that is only exposed to a constrained set of consumers may work, but I think introducing a new error code for open(2)/spec_open() of an ioretired device would be a bad idea. Also, it sounded to me like the bug leading to the style-2 inconsistency is that ioretire may have missed checking retired state in the spec_associate_vp_with_devi() code path associated with DL_ATTACH. If that is the case, we should file a CR for that. -Chris _______________________________________________ fm-discuss mailing list fm-discuss@opensolaris.org
