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]

Date:   Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:05:28 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, idosch@...lanox.com,
        jiri@...lanox.com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] mlxsw: Add extack messages for
 port_{un,}split   failures?

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