From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: Add extack messages for port_{un,}split failures? Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:18:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20180605081836.GD2164@nanopsycho> References: <20180604221503.20329-1-dsahern@kernel.org> <20180604221503.20329-4-dsahern@kernel.org> <20180605075230.GC2164@nanopsycho> <20180605080528.GA2034@splinter.mtl.com> 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: Ido Schimmel Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:54425 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751647AbeFEITM (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 04:19:12 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id o13-v6so3097019wmf.4 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 01:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180605080528.GA2034@splinter.mtl.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.