Cathy Zhou wrote: > I am wondering, we should always return ENOENT in > dls_devnet_hold_by_name() function [1]. ... > [1] Probably the only exception is the dls_mgmt_xxx() upcalll. If the > daemon fails for some reason, maybe EBADF should be returned.
Hmm, I'm not sure if we want to mask the actual errors from dls_mgmt_get_linkid() by always returning either ENOENT. For example, if the upcall failed, the error code should have appropriately been returned by i_dls_mgmt_upcall(), and we shouldn't have to translate between one error code and another. If it's ENOMEM, then we'll return that, etc... EBADF usually means that the caller supplied an invalid file-descriptor, so it might be strange to have i_dls_mgmt_upcall() return that error code. Perhaps we need to debug the kinds of errors that i_dls_mgmt_upcall() returns separately. > For example, ln1048, should return ENOENT. Fixed. > I am not quite understand > when we would reach line 1080, but I can certainly test it out. I honestly don't know, which is why I left it alone. I'll change it to ENOENT. > The > dls_devnet_set() function on line1105 could return EEXIST, if this is a > implicit VLAN name, but the same VLAN already exists using another name, > but in that case, we should also return ENOENT. EEXIST seems appropriate than ENOENT to me in that context. The user is attempting to create a VLAN that already exists. -Seb
