From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] [NET] [ISDN]: Do not validate ISDN net device address prior to interface-up Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:26:49 +0200 Message-ID: <4801C3C9.4070408@trash.net> References: <1207839617.4311.6.camel@compaq.thuisdomein> <4801A85F.8090906@trash.net> <4801BF1C.30207@gmail.com> <4801BEB4.6090909@trash.net> <20080413082738.GA2788@ami.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paul Bolle , netdev@vger.kernel.org, isdn4linux@listserv.isdn4linux.de, Jeff Garzik To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:36945 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751444AbYDMIaQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:30:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080413082738.GA2788@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:05:08AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > ... > >> In my opinion a proper error code like EADDRNOTAVAIL is enough, we >> have thousands of checks that might make things fail, should we >> add a printk to every one of those? >> > > IMHO yes - but only when "the functionality" is changed causing > regressions like this. This one is simply a bug, not a functional change. > BTW, I've assisted some similar case in > bugzilla, and I guess users will still ask for an explanation after > this error code change. > Well, I don't have particulary strong feelings about this, but I think adding a printk to one out of thousands of possible errors won't help much. What would be nice is some extended error reporting for netlink.