Subject: Re: [net-next RFC 2/8] macvtap: return -EBADFD when TUNGETIFF fails

From: Jason Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 14:28:28 +0800

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 <[email-masked]>
> 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