Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:31:05PM +0100, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > >>Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: >> >>>Do not allocate and send new skb if there are no listeners. >>>cn_netlink_send() can return -ESRCH in this case. >> >>I don't think it makes sense to return an error. netlink_has_listeners() >>can return false positives, so no error would still not mean that the >>packet was really delivered. cn_netlink_send also doesn't propagate the >>return code of netlink_broadcast, so nobody seems to be interested >>anyway. > > > Yep, return code of netlink_broadcast() also should be returned back. > Main idea is to show, that if error is returned, then data 100% was not > delivered, no matter where it was dropped. > And alhtough nobody really does not care about it, since there is > sequence number inside, I think better to indicate if message was > dropped or not.
Still netlink_has_listeners should not return an error. If no listeners exist, netlink_broadcast would return 0, netlink_has_listeners is just an optimization for that case. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
