[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3d0fd83a-fa88-8ceb-a44d-237f5a005eb4@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 20:24:03 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for SOCK_DESTROY
On 5/16/16 8:04 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Given that the filter can specify a number of sockets, some of which
> can and some of which can't be closed, and that whether a given socket
> can be closed is only known at the time we attempt to close it, there
> is a choice between two bad outcomes:
>
> 1. Users try to use "ss -K" with a kernel that doesn't support it, and
> get confused about why it does nothing and doesn't print an error
> message.
> 2. Users use "ss -K" with a kernel that does support it, and get
> irritated by seeing one error message per TCP_TIME_WAIT socket, UDP
> socket, etc.
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists