On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:36 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu 27 Sep 2018 at 20:42, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is clearly a copy-n-paste.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > net/sched/cls_api.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c
> > index 3de47e99b788..8dd7f8af6d54 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
> > @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ static struct tcf_block *tcf_block_find(struct net
> > *net, struct Qdisc **q,
> >
> > *q = qdisc_refcount_inc_nz(*q);
> > if (!*q) {
> > - NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Parent Qdisc doesn't exists");
> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Can't increase Qdisc
> > refcount");
> > err = -EINVAL;
> > goto errout_rcu;
> > }
>
> Is there a benefit in exposing this info to user?
Depends on what user you mean here. For kernel developers, yes,
this is useful. For others, no.
> For all intents and purposes Qdisc is gone at that point.
I don't want to be a language lawyer, but there is a difference between
"it doesn't exist" and "it exists but being removed". The errno EINVAL
betrays what you said too, it must be ENOENT to mach "Qdisc is gone".
I don't want to waste my time on this any more. Let's just drop it.
I really don't care, do you?
