X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Recipient:	dj AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date:
	mime-version; bh=yjtQhHG3fc8WPlwNN90mazdzihEDC8tbjFKM/dT4kbQ=; b=IVEc3/SN5dQ7
	yuvF0sFXmjmjfpp9rofI2uxeEQ0qU0IUb0b6y0/OvJv5FkGI/YxIX8M/BTbdFRUgXcsvKgZfHGyEi
	0Yz0iQrJzpIjlg4Tsh+RB9898pYIGWKwOvKqR3NCd7bz2puaWF7iFbU/Wnb+pWVfE9af2PA8kFhQm
	bvThirXUYsaxXoXyXmpJecWGstmKXMBtsHasqwSQ/Nu+RQyUel1wPDpxQFPIddZXgr6gu+8mmU43i
	mneX2gi4Q03OTJzPeaTCRM68vIkEywye1eFHFr0pejmgL9OFTS1jHwFDAbwqwnU5qwj7nI/ZuF/qR
	G+bQULaLd5F9wHvTDR/l7A==;
Date:	Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:54:04 +0300
Message-Id:	<86v84lntr7.fsf@gnu.org>
From:	"Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To:	Pali <pali AT pali DOT im>
Cc:	dj AT delorie DOT com, sezeroz AT gmail DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<20240413122345.sq2ua43ugmshrlhv@pali> (message from Pali on Sat,
	13 Apr 2024 14:23:45 +0200)
Subject:	Re: Error handling in __djgpp_set_page_attributes()
References:	<20240413103741 DOT wpz7cy3ff3uaflo6 AT pali>
	<86edb9pjka DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<20240413120109 DOT bbs63syonlprvmw4 AT pali>
	<865xwlpio5 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <20240413122345 DOT sq2ua43ugmshrlhv AT pali>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 14:23:45 +0200
> From: Pali <pali AT pali DOT im>
> Cc: dj AT delorie DOT com, sezeroz AT gmail DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
> 
> On Saturday 13 April 2024 15:10:34 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > +              default: /* Other unspecified error */
> > > +                errno = EIO;
> > > +                break;
> > 
> > Why EIO and not the original EACCES?
> 
> EACCES is "Permission denied" error.

I believe it's "Access denied" ("Permission denied" is EPERM).

EACCES was what we returned previously, isn't it?  So why is it bad to
fall back on it?  EIO is basically inappropriate at least the same as
EACCES: there's no "I/O" here, right?

> > Also, can you collect all EFAULT cases in the switch together?
> 
> I sorted cases by dpmi error values. But EFAULT cases can be grouped
> easily, for example by moving case 0x8002 above case 0x8023.

Yes, please.

- Raw text -