From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ido Schimmel Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: Add extack messages for port_{un,}split failures? Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:05:28 +0300 Message-ID: <20180605080528.GA2034@splinter.mtl.com> References: <20180604221503.20329-1-dsahern@kernel.org> <20180604221503.20329-4-dsahern@kernel.org> <20180605075230.GC2164@nanopsycho> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dsahern@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, idosch@mellanox.com, jiri@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, David Ahern To: Jiri Pirko Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:53661 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751481AbeFEIFb (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:05:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180605075230.GC2164@nanopsycho> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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