From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: Add extack messages for
 port_{un,}split failures?
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:58:44 -0700
Message-ID: <41305b81-34ae-7ccf-a309-e66c4ed9bcbb@gmail.com>
References: <20180604221503.20329-1-dsahern@kernel.org>
 <20180604221503.20329-4-dsahern@kernel.org>
 <20180605075230.GC2164@nanopsycho> <20180605080528.GA2034@splinter.mtl.com>
 <20180605081836.GD2164@nanopsycho>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dsahern@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, idosch@mellanox.com,
        jiri@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.83.68]:43529 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752217AbeFEO6G (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:58:06 -0400
Received: by mail-pg0-f68.google.com with SMTP id a14-v6so740068pgw.10
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 05 Jun 2018 07:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180605081836.GD2164@nanopsycho>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

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?