| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] dev.c: clear SIOCGIFHWADDR buffer if !dev->addr_len |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:07:27 -0800 |
| Cc: | Matt_Domsch@xxxxxxxx, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041101220644.GA23903@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20041030030936.GA25102@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1099163419.1039.97.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041101044433.GA18772@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041101173434.GA12437@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041101202754.GA23149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041101203821.GA15086@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041101204131.GA23277@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041101204533.GA17279@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1099345849.1073.1.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041101215944.GB17279@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041101220644.GA23903@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:06:44 +1100 Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 03:59:44PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: > > > > Actually, -EOVERFLOW appears throughout the kernel. A couple examples: > > I agree. Please disregard my comment re ERANGE. I think there is nothing wrong with clearing out the buffer for the !dev->addr_len case. This is not to say that what the apps are doing is correct or not, it merely preserves 2.4.x behavior which was changed unintentionally. I'm going to apply Matt's patch which began this thread. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/3] r8169: Large Send enablement, Jon Mason |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] r8169: Large Send enablement, part 2, Jon Mason |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] dev.c: clear SIOCGIFHWADDR buffer if !dev->addr_len, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2.6] dev.c: clear SIOCGIFHWADDR buffer if !dev->addr_len, Matt Domsch |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |