On 2018-08-25 9:02 a.m., Jiri Pirko wrote:
Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 08:11:07PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote:
ENOENT seems to be more logical to return when there's no more filter to delete.
Yeah, at least we should keep ENOENT for compatibility.
The bug here is chain 0 is gone after the last filter is gone,
so when you delete the filter again, it treats it as you specify
chain 0 which does not exist, so it hits EINVAL before ENOENT.
I understand. My concern is about consistency with other chains. Perhaps
-ENOENT for all chains in this case would be doable. What do you think?
ENOENT with extack describing whether chain or filter not found.
cheers,
jamal
