Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 08/01, Petr Machata wrote:
>>
>> Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On 07/31, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:34:58 +0200 Petr Machata wrote:
>> >> > > + qstat = netfam.qstats_get({"ifindex": cfg.ifindex}, dump=True)
>> >> > > + except NlError as e:
>> >> > > + if e.error == 95:
>> >> >
>> >> > Could you do this as if e.error == errno.ENOTSUP?
>> >>
>> >> just to be clear EOPNOTSUPP ..
>> >
>> > That might be the reason it's coded explicitly as 95? :-D
>>
>> Both exist, I just didn't notice the latter.
>>
>> >>> import errno
>> >>> errno.ENOTSUP
>> 95
>> >>> errno.EOPNOTSUPP
>> 95
>
> I believe Jakub was talking about kernel's ENOTSUPP (524) vs EOPNOTSUPP (95):
>
> $ grep ENOTSUPP include/linux/errno.h
> #define ENOTSUPP 524 /* Operation is not supported */
>
> $ grep EOPNOTSUPP include/uapi/asm-generic/errno.h
> #define EOPNOTSUPP 95 /* Operation not supported on transport endpoint */
>
> These two are frequently confused.
>
> OTOH, ENOTSUP looks like a userspace/libc invention:
>
> $ grep -w ENOTSUP /usr/include/bits/errno.h
> # ifndef ENOTSUP
> # define ENOTSUP EOPNOTSUPP
>
> I'm gonna stick to kernel's EOPNOTSUPP to make it look similar to what
> we have on the kernel side.
Yep, sounds good.
