[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1389559622.3720.115.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:47:02 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Use of ENOTSUPP in drivers?
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 19:57 +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:01:31 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Never return error code ENOTSUPP; it's *not* the same thing as ENOTSUP
> > in userland and is not part of the userland ABI. I would use EINVAL
> > here.
>
>
> I've found a few ethernet drivers that return -ENOTSUPP in various
> functions. In particular, some ethtool functions or ioctl's.
> Ben's message makes me think that the ethtool functions and ioctl's
> should be modified.
>
> There are other occurences, mostly in functions related to device
> initialization. I didn't manage to track down exactly from where some
> of them are called, and I don't know if ENOTSUPP is okay in these.
>
> I've included the complete list of occurences (based on net-next) from
> drivers/net/ethernet in patch form at the end, if that's more
> convenient than the file/function list. This is not meant to be
> applied.
>
>
> Do these (or part of them) need to be patched? Or is there something
> I'm missing?
[...]
I believe they should all be patched. According to
include/linux/errno.h, ENOTSUPP is meant for use in the NFSv3 code only.
(But it's apparently erroneously used *all over* the tree, not just in
net drivers!)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists