netdev - Re: [PATCH] Add printk for bonding module packets_per

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: <20170613.124610.1884271132040952714.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:46:10 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     joe@...ches.com
Cc:     michael.j.dilmore@...il.com, j.vosburgh@...il.com,
        vfalico@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add printk for bonding module packets_per_slave
 parameter

From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:21:03 -0700

> On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 11:34 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Michael Dilmore <michael.j.dilmore@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 14:42:46 +0100
>> 
>> > The packets per slave parameter used by round robin mode does not have a printk debug
>> > message in its set function in bond_options.c. Adding such a function would aid debugging
>> > of round-robin mode and allow the user to more easily verify that the parameter has been
>> > set correctly. I should add that I'm motivated by my own experience here - it's not
>> > obvious from output of tools such as wireshark and ifstat that the parameter is working
>> > correctly, and with the differences in bonding configuration across different distributions,
>> > it would have been comforting to see this output.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Michael Dilmore <michael.j.dilmore@...il.com>
>> > 
>> > cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,netdev@...r.kernel.org,linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> 
>> You can verify things by simplying reading the value back.
>> 
>> If every parameter emitted a kernel log message, it would be
>> unreadable.
>> 
>> I'm not applying this, sorry.
> 
> I agree.  Noisy logging output is not good.
> 
> Perhaps a general conversion of the dozens
> of existing netdev_info uses in this file to
> netdev_dbg and adding this at netdev_dbg is
> appropriate.
> 
> Something like:

Agreed, please submit this formally.