On Wed, 2006-05-07 at 15:54 +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-07-05 09:35
> > Please resubmit this patch with changing -err to -1 (i.e a one liner)
> > I went back to about 2.6.10 and this is in there. I looked at my notes
> > and i cant see any reasoning to explain this.
* jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-07-05 09:35
> Please resubmit this patch with changing -err to -1 (i.e a one liner)
> I went back to about 2.6.10 and this is in there. I looked at my notes
> and i cant see any reasoning to explain this. So it is a bug.
Fine, if you think that's better.
> Is ther
Thomas,
Please resubmit this patch with changing -err to -1 (i.e a one liner)
I went back to about 2.6.10 and this is in there. I looked at my notes
and i cant see any reasoning to explain this. So it is a bug.
Is there a way to check whether this was a result of some other earlier
change or was
I need to stare at this one for longer than 1 minute and i dont have
time right now; it does look strange (I am unsure what my thoughts were
at that point with -err - or maybe that was a change made by someone
else).
I dont have time until tommorow - but i would think the better fix will
be to c
"return -err" and blindly inheriting the error code in the netlink
failure exception handler causes errors codes to be returned as
positive value therefore making them being ignored by the caller.
May lead to sending out incomplete netlink messages.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
