[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1463631168.18194.153.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 21:12:48 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for
SOCK_DESTROY
On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 22:05 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> You think it is ok to send a request to the kernel, the kernel says "I
> can't do it" and the command says nothing to the user? That is current
> behavior. How on Earth is that acceptable?
I don't know. Tell me what is acceptable on a 'dump many sockets' and
some of them can be killed, but not all of them.
What I do know is that you sent totally buggy patches.
If you want to 'fix' something, please send a patch that we can agree
on, ie not breaking existing scripts.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists