Re: [PATCH nf 2/7] netfilter: x_tables: prefer pr_debug where possible

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 02:48:23PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> prefer pr_debug for cases where error is usually not seen by users.
> checkpatch complains due to lines > 80 but adding a newline doesn't
> make things any more readable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
> ---
>  net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c  | 2 +-
>  net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6t_rpfilter.c | 2 +-
>  net/netfilter/xt_SECMARK.c         | 2 +-
>  net/netfilter/xt_bpf.c             | 2 +-
>  net/netfilter/xt_connlabel.c       | 2 +-
>  net/netfilter/xt_ipcomp.c          | 2 +-
>  net/netfilter/xt_ipvs.c            | 2 +-
>  net/netfilter/xt_l2tp.c            | 2 +-
>  net/netfilter/xt_recent.c          | 4 ++--
>  net/netfilter/xt_socket.c          | 8 ++++----
>  net/netfilter/xt_time.c            | 2 +-
>  11 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c
> index 37fb9552e858..ffd1cf65af3a 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_rpfilter.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static int rpfilter_check(const struct xt_mtchk_param *par)
>  	const struct xt_rpfilter_info *info = par->matchinfo;
>  	unsigned int options = ~XT_RPFILTER_OPTION_MASK;
>  	if (info->flags & options) {
> -		pr_info("unknown options encountered");
> +		pr_debug("unknown options");

OK, so the idea is to use pr_debug() when it is unlikely to hit an
error via iptables, right?