Am 16.12.2010 14:43, schrieb Thomas Graf: > Thinking of netlink protocols in general and netfilter in specific, > maintaining a list of reserved error codes for each subsystem/target/ > module will result in an unbearable pain if the error codes are not > separated into individual namespaces for each module. > > That would in turn require each module to define a unique number or > some form of namespace resolution mechanism which does not help to keep > things simple. > > This is the main reason why I advocate the use of error strings. I completely disagree. As I said previously, userspace has to have knowledge of the kernel interpretation anyways. We already have libc calls which define complex errors like: stdtod(): if val == HUGE_VAL && errno == ERANGE: positive overflow I see no reason why we can't define combination of attributes and errno values for netlink messages. Something like: [IFLA_VLAN_ID] == NULL && errno == EINVAL: missing attribute [IFLA_VLAN_LINK] && errno == ENODEV: lower link does not exist and so on. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
