[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54BDBA29.10703@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:15:05 +0800
From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
CC: <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<grant.likely@...aro.org>, <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
<xuwei5@...ilicon.com>, <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v13 3/3] net: hisilicon: new hip04 ethernet driver
On 2015/1/20 4:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 19 January 2015 19:11:11 Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> After hammering on the box a bit again, I'm in a situation where I get
>> lots of
>>
>> [302398.232603] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302398.377309] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302398.395198] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302398.466118] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302398.659009] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302399.053389] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302399.122067] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302399.268192] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302399.286081] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302399.594201] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302399.683416] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>> [302399.701307] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
>>
>> and I really am getting a lot of drops - I can't even ping the machine
>> anymore.
>>
>> However, as it is there's a good chance the machine is simply
>> unreachable because it's busy writing to the UART, and even if not all
>> useful messages indicating anything have scrolled out. I really don't
>> think you should emit any message over and over again to the user. Once
>> or twice is enough.
>>
>> Please make sure to rate limit it.
>
> I would argue that packet loss is not an error condition at all
> and you should not print this at netdev_err() level. You could make
> this a netdev_dbg(), or just make it silent because it's already
> counted in the statistics.
>
I think something wrong with Graf's board, I will try to make it happen on my board, and
in any case I will add rate limit to xx_drop and change to dbg log level.
Thanks
Ding
> Arnd
>
> .
>
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists