From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: Why return E2BIG from bpf map update? Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:24:20 -0700 Message-ID: <55AD7514.7040906@plumgrid.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev To: Alex Gartrell , daniel@iogearbox.net Return-path: Received: from mail-yk0-f180.google.com ([209.85.160.180]:33021 "EHLO mail-yk0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757094AbbGTWYW (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:24:22 -0400 Received: by ykfw194 with SMTP id w194so70464989ykf.0 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:24:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 7/20/15 3:15 PM, Alex Gartrell wrote: > The ship has probably sailed on this one, but it seems like ENOSPC > makes more sense than E2BIG. Any chance of changing it so that poor > ebpf library maintainers in the future don't have to wonder how their > argument list got too big? sorry, too late. It's in tests and even document in bpf manpage: "E2BIG - indicates that the number of elements in the map reached the max_entries limit specified at map creation time." I read E2BIG as "too big" and not as "argument list is too long" :)