[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <113c3fe1-f490-d92d-2b4a-69b7115d8115@universe-factory.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:13:46 +0200
From: Matthias Schiffer <mschiffer@...verse-factory.net>
To: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, hannes@...essinduktion.org, pshelar@....org,
aduyck@...antis.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/6] vxlan: refactor verification and
application of configuration
On 06/23/2017 10:52 AM, Jiri Benc wrote:
> This patchset looks good overall (would send my Acked-by for most of
> this but I'm late).
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:03:55 +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
>> Log messages in these
>> functions are removed, as it is generally unexpected to find error output
>> for netlink requests in the kernel log. Userspace should be able to handle
>> errors based on the error codes returned via netlink just fine.
>
> However, this is not really true. It's impossible to find out what went
> wrong when you use e.g. iproute2 to configure a vxlan link.
>
> We really need to convert the kernel log messages to the extended
> netlink errors. Since you removed them prematurely, could you please
> work on that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiri
>
I was told the extended netlink error facilities were not ready yet, has
that changed since the last release?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other setting I can do with
iproute2 that will write its errors in the kernel log; but there are quite
a lot settings that will just return a very unspecific error code. Isn't it
more common for the userspace tool to handle diagnostics in such cases?
Anyways, I will gladly work on improving the error handling if someone can
give me a pointer how these extended netlink errors are used.
Matthias
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists