[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150305141003.91520e3c6f48341bb6b3f72c@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:10:03 -0500
From: Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
santiago@...reenet.org, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/7] mpls: Basic support for adding and
removing routes
On Thu, 05 Mar 2015, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 04 Mar 2015, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> >> roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On 3/3/15, 5:12 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> >> + /* Append makes no sense with mpls */
> >> >> + err = -EINVAL;
> >> >
> >> > minor nit: should this be -ENOTSUPP in that case ? (NLM_F_REPLACE and NLM_F_APPEND are
> >> > really operations. But, one can argue that they are an attribute of the msg and hence -EINVAL might be ok).
> >> > I did not find any other such case for consistency check.
> >>
> >> Yes. IPv4 implements NLM_F_APPEND and IPv6 ignores it.
> >>
> >> I will add a patch to change the error code.
> >
> > I believe the error -ENOTSUPP is deprecated and -EOPNOTSUPP should
> > be used instead.
>
> Ack.
>
> In particular ENOTSUPP is not allowed to make it to user space while
> EOPNOTSUPP is.
>
> Which makes me a little leary when I grep the kernel code and I see so
> may uses of ENOTSUPP in the kernel when I grep for it.
Perhaps checkpatch.pl could be modified to warn about new uses
of ENOTSUPP.
-Bill
--
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