Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:04:33 +0100 | From | Werner Almesberger <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.0 + iproute2 |
| |
Andi Kleen wrote: > 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.
The underlying problem is of course that all those sanity checks should be done in user space, not in the kernel.
(See also ftp://icaftp.epfl.ch/pub/people/almesber/slides/tmp-tc.ps.gz The bitching starts on slide 11, some ideas for fixing the problem on slide 16, but heed the warning on slide 15.)
Besides that, I agree that we have far too many EINVALs in the kernel. Maybe we should just record file name and line number of the EINVAL in *current and add an eh?(2) system call ;-)
- Werner
-- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, ICA, EPFL, CH Werner.Almesberger@epfl.ch / /_IN_N_032__Tel_+41_21_693_6621__Fax_+41_21_693_6610_____________________/ - 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/
| |