From: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@us.ibm.com>
To: "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@oss.sgi.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
Larry Kessler <kessler@us.ibm.com>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Net device error logging, revised
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:55:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3F68A008.12EF3AC1@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E010124F051@orsmsx402.jf.intel.com
"Feldman, Scott" wrote:
>
> > 3. A new macro, netdev_fatal, is included. Given the call
> > netdev_fatal(dev, HW, "NIC fried!\n");
> > the indicated message is always logged: the msglevel arg (HW, in this
> > case) is NOT consulted. In fact, the msglevel arg to netdev_fatal
> > is ignored in this implementation. (As previously discussed, in some
> > future implementation, the msglevel could be logged to help indicate
> > the circumstances under which the event was logged.)
>
> I couldn't find the previous discussion on netdev_fatal, so sorry if
> this has already been worked out. It uses KERN_ERR; did you mean
> something stronger? If not, why not just use netdev_err(dev, ALL,
> "...")? What is the situation in the driver where we'd want to use
> _fatal? How do I know when to use _fatal and when to use _err?
>
> -scott
Good question. There was a discussion thread where somebody pared down
the cc list (no LKML, no netdev, an apparently no Scott). I saved most
of the messages, and can send them along to you if you want.
Anyway, in support of passing the NETIF_MSG_* msglevel as an arg to the
netdev_* macros, I said that it...
> also opens the door for logging more clearly what part of the driver (PROBE,
> TX, RX, etc.) the message comes from.
David Brownell replied:
> This is a different issue. Why wouldn't it be enough
> to have unique messages?
I replied:
> First, I don't want acceptance of the netdev_* idea to hinge on this
> minor issue. Everything below is blue(r) sky...
>
> That said, it could be useful for an error-analysis utility to know that
> the message is (say) a WARNING categorized as an RX_ERR, especially if the
> utility hasn't been configured to recognized that specific message string.
> That's probably info that wouldn't come to you via printk (e.g., since
> syslog discards the severity level), but could come via another logging
> or monitoring system that plugs in (along with printk) via netdev_*.
>
> One problem with this idea is that, as I read Becker's document
> (URL above), "fatal" errors should always be logged, and therefore
> not tagged as PROBE, TX_ERR, etc. If we wanted to pursue this idea,
> we could implement
> netdev_fatal(dev, PROBE, "...")
> which logs the message unconditionally (KERN_ERR) and categorizes it as
> a PROBE error.
Jeff Garzik replied:
> printk'ing probe errors is definitely something I want to encourage.
> Probe errors are the most visible indication of what went wrong, if the
> driver fails to load. These are the messages that help developers
> figure out the problem. So I like the direction you suggest, in "If we
> wanted to pursue[...]"
In summary, the idea for netdev_fatal() is based on the idea that the msglevel
arg can not only be used for verbosity control, but can be logged as yet
another useful piece of info. For printk-based logging, it could easily be
added to the message prefix:
eth2: PROBE: Invalid Ethernet address
If you log this message using
netdev_err(dev, PROBE, "Invalid Ethernet address\n")
it will be logged only if the PROBE flag is set in the msg_enable bitmap.
If you log it using
netdev_fatal(dev, PROBE, "Invalid Ethernet address\n")
it will always be logged.
As mentioned above, I don't think the netdev_fatal idea is central to the
whole netdev_printk idea.
By the way, regarding using KERN_ERR vs. something stronger: It's pretty
unusual for a driver to log anything as KERN_CRIT or worse -- presumably
due to a desire not to overreact if the nth of n redundant devices happens
to fail. So unless we can agree on a definition of KERN_CRIT (e.g., it
applies to any failure that makes a device unavailable pending human
intervention), I'd prefer to steer clear of that.
Jim
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-17 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-17 2:06 [PATCH] Net device error logging, revised Feldman, Scott
2003-09-17 17:55 ` Jim Keniston [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-25 21:31 [PATCH 1/4] " Jim Keniston
2003-09-15 23:08 ` [PATCH] " Jim Keniston
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3F68A008.12EF3AC1@us.ibm.com \
--to=jkenisto@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=kessler@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=scott.feldman@intel.com \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).