[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190326173215.GM26076@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:32:15 +0100
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 05/22] ethtool: introduce ethtool netlink
interface
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:36:40PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 06:08:09PM CET, mkubecek@...e.cz wrote:
> >+/* genetlink setup */
> >+
> >+static const struct genl_ops ethtool_genl_ops[] = {
>
> Please be consistent with prefixes. Either use "ethtool_" or "ethnl_"
> for all functions and variables in this code.
OK
> >+/* module setup */
> >+
> >+static int __init ethnl_init(void)
> >+{
> >+ int ret;
> >+
> >+ ret = genl_register_family(ðtool_genl_family);
> >+ if (WARN(ret < 0, "ethtool: genetlink family registration failed"))
>
> Why do you need this warning? Please avoid it.
I'm confused now... few days ago you replied "+1" to the idea:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190321162105.GU2087@nanopsycho
I agreed that panic() (which is what e.g. rtnetlink does) would be an
overkill but I would be definitely opposed to not having anything in the
log at all and just silently going on without the interface (which may
result in misconfigured network). I believe that if this fails, it is
a sign of something going very wrong inside the kernel so that the "W"
taint flag would be appropriate.
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists