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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.136 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site