Ido Schimmel <ido...@idosch.org> writes:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 05:55:58AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c
>> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c
>> > index ca38a30fbe91..adc6ab2cf429 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum.c
>> > @@ -4433,6 +4433,11 @@ static int
>> > mlxsw_sp_netdevice_port_upper_event(struct net_device *lower_dev,
>> > NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Can not put a VLAN on an
>> > OVS port");
>> > return -EINVAL;
>> > }
>> > + if (is_vlan_dev(upper_dev) &&
>> > + vlan_dev_vlan_id(upper_dev) == 1) {
>> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Creating a VLAN device with
>> > VID 1 is unsupported: VLAN 1 carries untagged traffic");
>> > + return -EINVAL;
>> > + }
>>
>> Would ENOTSUPP be a better return code. VLAN 1 is valid, you just
>> don't support it.
>
> OK, makes sense. We currently use EINVAL for such errors, but we can
> convert to EOPNOTSUPP in net-next.
Yep, agreed.
Thanks,
Petr
