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 <jasow...@redhat.com> > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
