From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: Ethtool question Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:44:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20171011204406.GC30940@tuxdriver.com> References: <492e57b2-ac0a-ff01-2698-e048e97d8e37@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:45591 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757495AbdJKUpO (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:45:14 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <492e57b2-ac0a-ff01-2698-e048e97d8e37@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:51:56AM -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > I noticed today that setting some ethtool settings to the same value > returns an error code. I would think this should silently return > success instead? Makes it easier to call it from scripts this way: > > [root@lf0313-6477 lanforge]# ethtool -L eth3 combined 1 > combined unmodified, ignoring > no channel parameters changed, aborting > current values: tx 0 rx 0 other 1 combined 1 > [root@lf0313-6477 lanforge]# echo $? > 1 I just had this discussion a couple of months ago with someone. My initial feeling was like you, a no-op is not a failure. But someone convinced me otherwise...I will now endeavour to remember who that was and how they convinced me... Anyone else have input here? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.