From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: Add extack messages for port_{un,}split failures? Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:24:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20180605.102419.566982501905995405.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20180605075230.GC2164@nanopsycho> <20180605080528.GA2034@splinter.mtl.com> <20180605081836.GD2164@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: idosch@idosch.org, dsahern@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, idosch@mellanox.com, jiri@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, dsahern@gmail.com To: jiri@resnulli.us Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:36800 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752239AbeFEOYV (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:24:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20180605081836.GD2164@nanopsycho> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Jiri Pirko Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:18:36 +0200 > Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:05:28AM CEST, idosch@idosch.org wrote: >>On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 12:15:03AM CEST, dsahern@kernel.org wrote: >>> > if (!mlxsw_sp_port->split) { >>> > netdev_err(mlxsw_sp_port->dev, "Port wasn't split\n"); >>> >+ NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Port was not split"); >>> >>> I wonder if we need the dmesg for these as well. Plus it is not the same >>> (wasn't/was not) which is maybe confusing. Any objection against the >>> original dmesg messages removal? >> >>We had this discussion about three months ago and decided to keep the >>existing messages: >>https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=151982813309466&w=2 > > I forgot. Thanks for reminding me. So could we at least have the > messages 100% same? Thanks. Seems like a reasonable request, David A.?