DECnet routing rule resolution
Hi, 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, Steve. - 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
Re: DECnet routing rule resolution
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
Re: DECnet routing rule resolution
* David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-29 11:43 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? I agree. - 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
