Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 04:03:50PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>On 30/07/18 08:30 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> }
>> + if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using
>> TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead");
>> + a->tcfa_action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
>> + }
>> +
>> return a;
>
>
>I think it would make a lot more sense to just reject the entry than
>changing it underneath the user to a default value. Least element of
>suprise.
It might break existing user who is incorrectly doing it. But I'm okay
with both solutions.
>
>cheers,
>jamal
