From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:19:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:18:54 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:8346 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:18:37 -0500 From: "David S. Miller" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14945.28354.209720.579437@pizda.ninka.net> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:17:54 -0800 (PST) To: Igmar Palsenberg Cc: Harald Welte , Subject: Re: 2.4.0 + iproute2 In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <14945.26991.35849.95234@pizda.ninka.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 13) "Crater Lake" XEmacs Lucid Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Igmar Palsenberg writes: > we might want to consider changing the error the call gives in case > MULTIPLE_TABLES isn't set. -EINVAL is ugly, -ENOSYS should make the error > more clear.. How do I tell the difference between using the wrong system call number to invoke an ioctl or socket option change, and making a call for a feature I haven't configured into my kernel? I think ENOSYS is just a bad a choice. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/