From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jeff Kirsher" Subject: Re: [NET-NEXT PATCH 08/14] e1000e: link up/down messages must follow a specific format Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:19:07 -0800 Message-ID: <9929d2390811211319v1905b74ey329c4cd1001ac7ce@mail.gmail.com> References: <20081121185859.32313.42332.stgit@gitlost.lost> <20081121190110.32313.43591.stgit@gitlost.lost> <1227294295.23438.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <9929d2390811211123i284a3939lf96e53208ee8357e@mail.gmail.com> <20081121121625.6cdf22b6@extreme> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Dan Williams" , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, "Bruce Allan" To: "Stephen Hemminger" Return-path: Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com ([64.233.178.243]:57110 "EHLO hs-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750822AbYKUVTK (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:19:10 -0500 Received: by hs-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 4so531339hsl.5 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:19:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20081121121625.6cdf22b6@extreme> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:23:42 -0800 > "Jeff Kirsher" wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Dan Williams wrote: >> > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 11:01 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: >> >> From: Bruce Allan >> >> >> >> The system log messages created on a link status change need to follow a >> >> specific format to work with tools some customers use. >> > >> > Um, shouldn't those tools be listening to netlink for carrier events, or >> > are these tools run on a separate machine using on some later date using >> > the logs from the machine with the e1000e? >> > >> > Dan >> > >> >> From my understanding these tools are looking at the logs and that is >> why we need to have a consistent log message. >> > > These tools are tied to a specific driver (yours), because not all drivers > generate a message or the same format message. This may be okay for Intel > but is really stupid design... I have not checked all of the drivers, but I do see that our driver does follow what others driver (e.g. tg3, starfire) are doing. I would be open for standardizing on what messages get generated and in what format. I am sure that would help third parties generate tools that would work with every driver. > It would be good if link state transitions generated uevents (online/offline). > Then udev, hal and others could use that without netlink. > -- Again, I would be open to any standardization so that all drivers would deal with link up/down messages in the same manner. -- Cheers, Jeff