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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
