[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3cafb2342fa6a754fc389947f77f248@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:35:53 -0600
From: subashab@...eaurora.org
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for SOCK_DESTROY
On 2016-05-16 20:29, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:24 AM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> wrote:
>> As I mentioned we can print the unsupported once or per socket matched
>> and
>> with the socket params. e.g.,
>>
>> + } else if (errno == EOPNOTSUPP) {
>> + printf("Operation not supported for:\n");
>> + inet_show_sock(h, diag_arg->f,
>> diag_arg->protocol);
>>
>> Actively suppressing all error messages is just wrong. I get the
>> flooding
>> issue so I'm fine with just printing it once.
>
> I disagree, but then I'm the one who wrote it in the first place, so
> you wouldn't expect me to agree. :-) Let's see what Stephen says.
Hi Lorenzo
Would it be acceptable to have a separate column which displays the
result of the sock destroy operation per socket.
State ... Killed
ESTAB Y
TIME_WAIT N
If it is not supported from kernel, maybe print U (unsupported) for
this.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists