Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:52:15 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.0 + iproute2 |
| |
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:17:54AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > Igmar Palsenberg writes: > > > we might want to consider changing the error the call gives in case > > MULTIPLE_TABLES isn't set. -EINVAL is ugly, -ENOSYS should make the error > > more clear.. > > How do I tell the difference between using the wrong system call > number to invoke an ioctl or socket option change, and making a > call for a feature I haven't configured into my kernel? > > I think ENOSYS is just a bad a choice.
In my opinion (rt)netlink would benefit a lot from introducing 5-10 new errnos and possibly a new socket option to get a string/number with the exact error. Configuring a complex subsystem like CBQ which has dozens of parameters with only a single ed'esque error message (EINVAL) when something goes wrong is just bad.
-Andi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |