From: Steven Whitehouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:24:10 +0100
> One of the effects of the recent tidy up of the DECnet routing rules > code is that we are no longer able to see the difference between reading > a rule of type FR_ACT_UNREACHABLE returning -ENETUNREACH and simply > running out of rules to look at, which also returns the same thing. > > The DECnet code used to return -ESRCH if it ran out of rules in which > case the test in dn_route.c (which resulted in DECnet falling back to > endnode routing in the -ESRCH case) no longer works. > > So there seems to be several options to try and solve this: one is to > change the error return for running out of rules in > fib_rules.c:fib_rules_lookup() to something else (but then that has a > knock on effect in the ipv4 code). Another is to add the "not found" > error return as a parameter in the struct fib_rules_ops so that both > protocols can have their preferred error return. Both solutions seem a > bit messy, so I thought I'd ask for some guidance on this before writing > a patch, I think we should be able to return -ESRCH (a more sensible error value if you ask me) across the board. Thomas what do you think? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
