Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 08:11:07PM CEST, xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com wrote: >On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:21 AM Roman Mashak <m...@mojatatu.com> wrote: >> >> So _before_ commit f71e0ca4db187af7c44987e9d21e9042c3046070 step 6 would >> return -ENOENT with "Error: Filter with specified priority/protocol not >> found." and _after_ the commit it returns -EINVAL (Error: Cannot find >> specified filter chain.) >> >> ENOENT seems to be more logical to return when there's no more filter to >> delete. > >Yeah, at least we should keep ENOENT for compatibility. > >The bug here is chain 0 is gone after the last filter is gone, >so when you delete the filter again, it treats it as you specify >chain 0 which does not exist, so it hits EINVAL before ENOENT.
I understand. My concern is about consistency with other chains. Perhaps -ENOENT for all chains in this case would be doable. What do you think? > >I am not sure how to fix this properly.
