Stanislav Fomichev [off-list ref] writes:

On 08/01, Petr Machata wrote:

quoted

Stanislav Fomichev [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 07/31, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:34:58 +0200 Petr Machata wrote:

quoted

quoted

+        qstat = netfam.qstats_get({"ifindex": cfg.ifindex}, dump=True)
+    except NlError as e:
+        if e.error == 95:  

Could you do this as if e.error == errno.ENOTSUP?

just to be clear EOPNOTSUPP ..

That might be the reason it's coded explicitly as 95? :-D

Both exist, I just didn't notice the latter.

quoted

quoted

quoted

import errno
errno.ENOTSUP

95

quoted

quoted

quoted

errno.EOPNOTSUPP

95

I believe Jakub was talking about kernel's ENOTSUPP (524) vs EOPNOTSUPP (95):

$ grep ENOTSUPP include/linux/errno.h
#define ENOTSUPP        524     /* Operation is not supported */

$ grep EOPNOTSUPP include/uapi/asm-generic/errno.h
#define EOPNOTSUPP      95      /* Operation not supported on transport endpoint */

These two are frequently confused.

OTOH, ENOTSUP looks like a userspace/libc invention:

$ grep -w ENOTSUP /usr/include/bits/errno.h
# ifndef ENOTSUP
#  define ENOTSUP               EOPNOTSUPP

I'm gonna stick to kernel's EOPNOTSUPP to make it look similar to what
we have on the kernel side.

Yep, sounds good.