Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Mar 2022 20:22:38 +0100 | From | Samuel Thibault <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] SO_ZEROCOPY should rather return -ENOPROTOOPT |
| |
Hello,
Willem de Bruijn, le mar. 01 mars 2022 10:21:41 -0500, a ecrit: > > > > > > @@ -1377,9 +1377,9 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, > > > > > > if (!(sk_is_tcp(sk) || > > > > > > (sk->sk_type == SOCK_DGRAM && > > > > > > sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_UDP))) > > > > > > - ret = -ENOTSUPP; > > > > > > + ret = -ENOPROTOOPT; > > > > > > } else if (sk->sk_family != PF_RDS) { > > > > > > - ret = -ENOTSUPP; > > > > > > + ret = -ENOPROTOOPT; > > > > > > } > > > > > > if (!ret) { > > > > > > if (val < 0 || val > 1) > > > > > > > > > > That should have been a public error code. Perhaps rather EOPNOTSUPP. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with a change now is that it will confuse existing > > > > > applications that check for -524 (ENOTSUPP). > > > > > > > > They were not supposed to hardcord -524... > > > > > > > > Actually, they already had to check against EOPNOTSUPP to support older > > > > kernels, so EOPNOTSUPP is not supposed to pose a problem. > > > > > > Which older kernels returned EOPNOTSUPP on SO_ZEROCOPY? > > > > Sorry, bad copy/paste, I meant ENOPROTOOPT. > > Same point though, right? These are not legacy concerns, but specific > to applications written to SO_ZEROCOPY. > > I expect that most will just ignore the exact error code and will work > with either.
Ok, so, is this an Acked-by: you? :)
Samuel
| |