From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andy Gospodarek <andy@greyhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bonding: warn user when 802.3ad speed is unknown
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:51:18 -0400
Message-ID: <20170609145118.GA84776@C02RW35GFVH8>
References: <20170608164811.GB20216@lunn.ch>
 <1497015283-1729-1-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
 <20170609142359.GD20756@lunn.ch>
 <fcca67e0-a170-6dd7-dcbb-7a0ecc0453d5@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, davem@davemloft.net,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, j.vosburgh@gmail.com, vfalico@gmail.com,
        thibaut.collet@6wind.com, linville@tuxdriver.com
To: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-qt0-f170.google.com ([209.85.216.170]:33950 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751548AbdFIOvY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:51:24 -0400
Received: by mail-qt0-f170.google.com with SMTP id c10so78463832qtd.1
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 09 Jun 2017 07:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fcca67e0-a170-6dd7-dcbb-7a0ecc0453d5@6wind.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:39:06PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 09/06/2017 à 16:23, Andrew Lunn a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:34:43PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> >> Make it explicit in the log.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
> > 
> > Hi Nicolas
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> > 
> > How often is this called? It seems like it is used by
> Good question! ;-)
> 
> > ad_port_selection_logic, which has the comment:
> > 
> > 	is called in the inititalization (after all the handshkes),
> > 	and after every lacpdu receive (if selected is off)
> > 
> > I just wonder if this should be rate limited?
> So using net_warn_ratelimited()?

Why not just use pr_warn_once()?

It may go unnoticed at first, but that seems like a decent option compared to
spamming log files.

> Displaying this message continuously in the log, even at a low rate, seems not
> the best things to do. The first time seems enough, but it would require more
> code for that. Is it not over-engineering?
> The ideal solution would be a BUILD_BUG_ON(), but I don't see how to make that.
>