[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 03:36:55AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Andi Kleen writes:
> > 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.
> Textual error messages for system calls never belong in the kernel.
> Put it in glibc or wherever.

This just means that a table needs to be kept in sync between glibc and
netlink, and if someone e.g. gets a new CBQ module he would need to update
glibc. It's also bad for maintainers, because patches for tables of number
tend to always reject ;)

Textual error messages are e.g. used by plan9 and would be somewhat similar
to /proc. It would probably waste a few bytes in the kernel, but that's not
too bad, given the work it saves. e.g. rusty's code usually has a debug option
that you can set and where each EINVAL outputs a error message; i always found
that very useful and sometimes hacked that into other subsystems in my
private tree.

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:0.168 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site