* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-03-29 11:43 > From: Steven Whitehouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:24:10 +0100 > > > One of the effects of the recent tidy up of the DECnet routing rules > > code is that we are no longer able to see the difference between reading > > a rule of type FR_ACT_UNREACHABLE returning -ENETUNREACH and simply > > running out of rules to look at, which also returns the same thing. > > > > The DECnet code used to return -ESRCH if it ran out of rules in which > > case the test in dn_route.c (which resulted in DECnet falling back to > > endnode routing in the -ESRCH case) no longer works. > > > > So there seems to be several options to try and solve this: one is to > > change the error return for running out of rules in > > fib_rules.c:fib_rules_lookup() to something else (but then that has a > > knock on effect in the ipv4 code). Another is to add the "not found" > > error return as a parameter in the struct fib_rules_ops so that both > > protocols can have their preferred error return. Both solutions seem a > > bit messy, so I thought I'd ask for some guidance on this before writing > > a patch, > > I think we should be able to return -ESRCH (a more sensible error > value if you ask me) across the board. > > Thomas what do you think?
I agree. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
