Nikolay Aleksandrov <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
>>> Why do you want to return the error code here? Walking the code paths
>>> seems like ENOENT or err from switchdev_port_obj_del are the 2 error
>>> possibilities.
>>
>> For example, if you attempt to delete a non-existing vlan on a port,
>> the current code succeeds and also sends event :
>>
>> rtnetlink_rcv_msg
>> rtnl_bridge_dellink
>> br_dellink
>> br_afspec
>> br_vlan_info
>>
>> int br_dellink(..)
>> {
>> ...
>> err = br_afspec()
>> if (err == 0)
>> br_ifinfo_notify(RTM_NEWLINK, p);
>> }
>>
>> This is misleading, so a proper errcode has to be produced.
>>
>
> True, but you also change the expected behaviour because now a user can
> clear all vlans with one request (1 - 4094), and after the change that
> will fail with a partial delete if some vlan was missing.
Nikolay, would you like to have a crack at fixing this?
> This has been the behaviour forever and some script might depend on it.
> Also IMO, and as David also mentioned, doing a partial delete is not good.
