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 17:05:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20180605150518.GB2117@nanopsycho> References: <20180604221503.20329-1-dsahern@kernel.org> <20180604221503.20329-4-dsahern@kernel.org> <20180605075230.GC2164@nanopsycho> <20180605080528.GA2034@splinter.mtl.com> <20180605081836.GD2164@nanopsycho> <41305b81-34ae-7ccf-a309-e66c4ed9bcbb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ido Schimmel , dsahern@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, idosch@mellanox.com, jiri@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com To: David Ahern Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:40282 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751812AbeFEPFz (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:05:55 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id n5-v6so5757917wmc.5 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 08:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41305b81-34ae-7ccf-a309-e66c4ed9bcbb@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 04:58:44PM CEST, dsahern@gmail.com wrote: >On 6/5/18 1:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> 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. >> > >ok if I convert the current message to 'was not' and avoid the >contraction in messages? Sure.