Re: [PATCH net-next 13/13] bnxt_en: Make PTP TX timestamp HWRM query silent

[Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:47:03PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:35 PM Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@broadcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 3:48 PM Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Michael, Pavan,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 04:51:22PM -0800, Michael Chan wrote:
> > > > From: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@broadcom.com>
> > > >
> > > > In a busy network, especially with flow control enabled, we may
> > > > experience timestamp query failures fairly regularly. After a while,
> > > > dmesg may be flooded with timestamp query failure error messages.
> > > >
> > > > Silence the error message from the low level hwrm function that
> > > > sends the firmware message.  Change netdev_err() to netdev_WARN_ONCE()
> > > > if this FW call ever fails.
> > >
> > > This is starting to cause a warning now, which is not ideal, because
> > > this error-now-warning happens quite frequently in Meta's fleet.
> > >
> > > At the same time, we want to have our kernels running warninglessly.
> > > Moreover, the call stack displayed by the warning doesn't seem to be
> > > quite useful and doees not help to investigate "the problem", I _think_.
> > >
> > > Is it OK to move it back to error, something as:
> > >
> > > -       netdev_WARN_ONCE(bp->dev,
> > > +       netdev_err_once(bp->dev,
> > >                          "TS query for TX timer failed rc = %x\n", rc);
> >
> > Hi Breno, I think it is OK to change.
> > Would you be submitting a patch for this?
> >
> 
> Why not netdev_warn_once()?  It will just print a message at the
> warning level without the stack trace.  I think we consider this
> condition to be just a warning and not an error.  Thanks.

This is even better. I will send a patch shortly.

Thanks