On Fri 28 Sep 2018 at 17:03, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:36 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu 27 Sep 2018 at 20:42, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It is clearly a copy-n-paste.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > net/sched/cls_api.c | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> > index 3de47e99b788..8dd7f8af6d54 100644
>> > --- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> > +++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> > @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ static struct tcf_block *tcf_block_find(struct net
>> > *net, struct Qdisc **q,
>> >
>> > *q = qdisc_refcount_inc_nz(*q);
>> > if (!*q) {
>> > - NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Parent Qdisc doesn't
>> > exists");
>> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Can't increase Qdisc
>> > refcount");
>> > err = -EINVAL;
>> > goto errout_rcu;
>> > }
>>
>> Is there a benefit in exposing this info to user?
>
> Depends on what user you mean here. For kernel developers, yes,
> this is useful. For others, no.
>
>
>> For all intents and purposes Qdisc is gone at that point.
>
> I don't want to be a language lawyer, but there is a difference between
> "it doesn't exist" and "it exists but being removed". The errno EINVAL
> betrays what you said too, it must be ENOENT to mach "Qdisc is gone".
>
> I don't want to waste my time on this any more. Let's just drop it.
>
> I really don't care, do you?
I'm asked the question in order to improve error messages in my future
patches, not because I care about this particular string.
