netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: dsa: make the FDB add function return void

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]

Message-ID: <87egajxwb5.fsf@ketchup.mtl.sfl>
Date:	Tue, 05 Apr 2016 23:14:54 -0400
From:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: dsa: make the FDB add function return void

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:

>>  	mutex_lock(&ps->smi_mutex);
>> -	ret = _mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_load(ds, port, fdb->addr, fdb->vid, state);
>> +	if (_mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_load(ds, port, fdb->addr, fdb->vid, state))
>> +		netdev_warn(ds->ports[port], "cannot load address\n");
>
> In the SF2 driver you use pr_err, but here netdev_warn. We probably
> should be consistent if we error or warn. I would use netdev_error,
> since if this fails we probably have a real hardware problem.

I used pr_err in the SF2 driver to be consistent with the rest of the
code which only uses pr_err and pr_info.

I was thinking about adding ds_err and ds_port_err to print errors for
ds->master_dev and ds->ports[port], but that might be overkill. What do
you think? Or local to the driver for the moment, like mvsw_err maybe?

I tend to use warn for cases where the user cannot really do something
about the situation, but an hardware problem is indeed critical, so I
agree with you to use error over warn here.

Thanks,
Vivien