From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Wang Subject: Re: [net-next RFC 2/8] macvtap: return -EBADFD when TUNGETIFF fails Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:28:28 +0800 Message-ID: <519F088C.1020509@redhat.com> References: <1369278753-2533-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1369278753-2533-3-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <20130523115423.GF17993@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130523115423.GF17993@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 05/23/2013 07:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:12:27AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> Tuntap return -EBADFD when TUNGETIFF fails, we should return the same value. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang > Can you add some more comments on why this matters? Just to keep compatibility for tuntap. > Any userspace that cares will have to handle both, right? Ideally the userspace should expect the same behavior for both tap and macvtap. Maybe we should just keep this. > >> --- >> drivers/net/macvtap.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/macvtap.c b/drivers/net/macvtap.c >> index 59e9605..ce1c72a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/macvtap.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/macvtap.c >> @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ static long macvtap_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, >> rcu_read_unlock_bh(); >> >> if (!vlan) >> - return -ENOLINK; >> + return -EBADFD; >> >> ret = 0; >> if (copy_to_user(&ifr->ifr_name, vlan->dev->name, IFNAMSIZ) || >> -- >> 1.7.1