Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:33:10 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.0 + iproute2 |
| |
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 02:55:28AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > > Andi Kleen writes: > > 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. > > Introducing 5-10 new errnos just for rtnetlink is a big waste when we > already have socket extended errors which are perfect for this > purpose.
Just makes the interface rather complicated for the user, but ok.
How would you pass the extended errors? As strings or as to be defined new numbers? I would prefer strings, because the number namespace could turn out to be as nasty to maintain as the current sysctl one.
-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/
|  |