libdrm-2.4.37: use ETIMEDOUT instead of ETIME?

[Mark Kettenis]

> From: Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:04:26 -0700
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Thomas Klausner <wiz at netbsd.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:02:56AM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Thomas Klausner <wiz at netbsd.org> wrote:
> >> > libdrm-2.4.37 added a use of ETIME (from errno(3)) in
> >> > intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c.
> >> >
> >> > This errno is not defined on (at least) DragonFly BSD.
> >> >
> >> > A Linux man page for errno(3) says:
> >> >         ETIME           Timer expired (POSIX.1 (XSI STREAMS option))
> >> >                         (POSIX.1 says "STREAM ioctl(2) timeout")
> >> >
> >> > Since this errno is only defined for a POSIX extension, wouldn't it
> >> > make more sense to use the standard errno(3) ETIMEDOUT instead which
> >> > exists in more environments?
> >> >  Thomas
> >>
> >> Does DragonFly BSD have Intel KMS?
> >
> > Not yet, but I don't see how this is relevant, because the file is
> > compiled on DragonFly BSD independent of that question. Can you please
> > explain?
> >  Thomas
> 
> I was asking mostly out of curiosity, but at the same time I don't
> think compiling this (libdrm_intel) is useful without KMS.

Don't think it is KMS that matters here, but rather DRM/GEM support.
We have the latter in OpenBSD, and do build an older version of
libdrm, and I'm pretty sure that I've seen it used by applications.

> Sorry for sort of off-topic. No idea about ETIME vs ETIMEDOUT.

OpenBSD doesn't ETIME either, so ETIMEDOUT defenitely seems more
portable to me.

To be honest though, having a function return -EANYTHING outside of
the Linux kernel doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me.  If all
that matters is that the return value is negative, simply returning -1
might make more sense.