David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: > From: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> > Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:22:22 +1100 > >>> On Tue, Dec 19 2017, Michael Ellerman <mich...@concordia.ellerman.id.au> >>> wrote: >>>> This revert seems to have broken networking on one of my powerpc >>>> machines, according to git bisect. >>>> >>>> The symptom is DHCP fails and I don't get a link, I didn't dig any >>>> further than that. I can if it's helpful. >>>> >>>> I think the problem is that 87c320e51519 ("net: core: dev_get_valid_name >>>> is now the same as dev_alloc_name_ns") only makes sense while >>>> d6f295e9def0 remains in the tree. >>> >>> I'm sorry about all of this, I really didn't think there would be such >>> consequences of changing an errno return. Indeed, d6f29 was preparation >>> for unifying the two functions that do the exact same thing (and how we >>> ever got into that situation is somewhat unclear), except for >>> their behaviour in the case the requested name already exists. So one of >>> the two interfaces had to change its return value, and as I wrote, I >>> thought EEXIST was the saner choice when an explicit name (no %d) had >>> been requested. >> >> No worries. >> >>>> ie. before the entire series, dev_get_valid_name() would return EEXIST, >>>> and that was retained when 87c320e51519 was merged, but now that >>>> d6f295e9def0 has been reverted dev_get_valid_name() is returning ENFILE. >>>> >>>> I can get the network up again if I also revert 87c320e51519 ("net: >>>> core: dev_get_valid_name is now the same as dev_alloc_name_ns"), or with >>>> the gross patch below. >>> >>> I don't think changing -ENFILE to -EEXIST would be right either, since >>> dev_get_valid_name() used to be able to return both (-EEXIST in the case >>> where there's no %d, -ENFILE in the case where we end up calling >>> dev_alloc_name_ns()). If anything, we could do the check for the old >>> -EEXIST condition first, and then call dev_alloc_name_ns(). But I'm also >>> fine with reverting. >> >> Yeah I think a revert would be best, given it's nearly rc5. >> >> My userspace is not exotic AFAIK, just debian something, so presumably >> this will affect other people too. > > I've just queued up the following revert, thanks!
Thanks. I don't see it in rc7, will it get to Linus sometime before the release? cheers