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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180605150518.GB2117@nanopsycho>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:05:18 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>, dsahern@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, idosch@...lanox.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
        jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: Add extack messages for
 port_{un,}split failures?

Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 04:58:44PM CEST, dsahern@...il.com wrote:
>On 6/5/18 1:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>
>ok if I convert the current message to 'was not' and avoid the
>contraction in messages?

Sure.