lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.066 / U:34.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site