[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53e4271f-c881-c52d-c6e1-4930a4f6898a@tessares.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 13:57:48 +0200
From: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
To: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@...il.com>,
Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, mptcp@...ts.01.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mptcp: add some missing pr_fmt defines
Hi Geliang,
On 03/04/2020 11:14, Geliang Tang wrote:
> Some of the mptcp logs didn't print out the format string:
>
> [ 185.651493] DSS
> [ 185.651494] data_fin=0 dsn64=0 use_map=0 ack64=1 use_ack=1
> [ 185.651494] data_ack=13792750332298763796
> [ 185.651495] MPTCP: msk=00000000c4b81cfc ssk=000000009743af53 data_avail=0 skb=0000000063dc595d
> [ 185.651495] MPTCP: msk=00000000c4b81cfc ssk=000000009743af53 status=0
> [ 185.651495] MPTCP: msk ack_seq=9bbc894565aa2f9a subflow ack_seq=9bbc894565aa2f9a
> [ 185.651496] MPTCP: msk=00000000c4b81cfc ssk=000000009743af53 data_avail=1 skb=0000000012e809e1
>
> So this patch added these missing pr_fmt defines. Then we can get the same
> format string "MPTCP" in all mptcp logs like this:
>
> [ 142.795829] MPTCP: DSS
> [ 142.795829] MPTCP: data_fin=0 dsn64=0 use_map=0 ack64=1 use_ack=1
> [ 142.795829] MPTCP: data_ack=8089704603109242421
> [ 142.795830] MPTCP: msk=00000000133a24e0 ssk=000000002e508c64 data_avail=0 skb=00000000d5f230df
> [ 142.795830] MPTCP: msk=00000000133a24e0 ssk=000000002e508c64 status=0
> [ 142.795831] MPTCP: msk ack_seq=66790290f1199d9b subflow ack_seq=66790290f1199d9b
> [ 142.795831] MPTCP: msk=00000000133a24e0 ssk=000000002e508c64 data_avail=1 skb=00000000de5aca2e
>
> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@...il.com>
>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - add pr_fmt to C files, not headers.
Thank you for this v2 (sorry, it was in my spam folder).
I thought checkpatch.pl would have forced you to add a new blank line in
net/mptcp/pm.c after the copyright comment and before the beginning of
the code but it seems not. And there was no blank line before so I guess
it's OK like that!
Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists