netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] net: Unified offload configuration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:27:51 +0100
From:	Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] net: Unified offload configuration

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:29:31PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 15:22 +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:56:11PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> [...]
> > > Please get rid of that annoying message spit out by netif_features_change(),
> > > it's just spam.  If we want notifications for stuff like this, use a
> > > non-unicast netlink message so those who want to hear it can do so.
> > You mean netdev_update_features() "Features changed" message? Is it ok
> > to just demote it to DEBUG level or you want to remove it altogether?
> > What about netdev_fix_features() messages?
> I think you need to emit these messages at 'error' severity when fixing
> up features for a newly-added device, but at 'debug' later on.

Why the difference? Those messages on startup matter mostly to developers
and later mostly to users. Anyway, the conditions in netdev_fix_features()
are all constant (dependent only on net core implementation).

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html