netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: Add extack messages for port

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: <20180605.102419.566982501905995405.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:24:19 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jiri@...nulli.us
Cc:     idosch@...sch.org, dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        idosch@...lanox.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: Add extack messages for
 port_{un,}split failures?

From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:18:36 +0200

> Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:05:28AM CEST, idosch@...sch.org wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 09:52:30AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>> Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 12:15:03AM CEST, dsahern@...nel.org wrote:
>>> > 	if (!mlxsw_sp_port->split) {
>>> > 		netdev_err(mlxsw_sp_port->dev, "Port wasn't split\n");
>>> >+		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Port was not split");
>>> 
>>> I wonder if we need the dmesg for these as well. Plus it is not the same
>>> (wasn't/was not) which is maybe confusing. Any objection against the
>>> original dmesg messages removal?
>>
>>We had this discussion about three months ago and decided to keep the
>>existing messages:
>>https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=151982813309466&w=2
> 
> I forgot. Thanks for reminding me. So could we at least have the
> messages 100% same? Thanks.

Seems like a reasonable request, David A.?