[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <pj41zlimccdudx.fsf@u68c7b5b1d2d758.ant.amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 23:42:11 +0300
From: Shay Agroskin <shayagr@...zon.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <saeed@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <dwmw@...zon.com>,
<zorik@...zon.com>, <matua@...zon.com>, <saeedb@...zon.com>,
<msw@...zon.com>, <aliguori@...zon.com>, <nafea@...zon.com>,
<gtzalik@...zon.com>, <netanel@...zon.com>, <alisaidi@...zon.com>,
<benh@...zon.com>, <akiyano@...zon.com>, <sameehj@...zon.com>,
<ndagan@...zon.com>, <amitbern@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 net-next 2/8] net: ena: Add device distinct log prefix to files
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:38:28 -0700
>
>> allocated but unregistered netdevices also do not help much as
>> the name
>> of the netdev is not assigned yet.
>>
>> why don't use dev_info(pci_dev) macors for low level functions
>> when
>> netdev is not available or not allocated yet.
>
> The problem in this case is that they have this huge suite of
> functions that operate on a specific ena sub-object. Most of
> the time
> the associated netdev is fully realized, but in the few calls
> made
> during early probe it is not.
>
> To me it is a serious loss that just because a small number of
> times
> the interface lacks a fully realized netdev object, we can't use
> the
> netdev_*() routines.
>
> Most users aren't going to understand that an error message for
> PCI
> device XyZ means eth0 is having problems.
I agree that netdev_* functions would be more useful, which is why
we're working on a patch to transform ena_com functions to use
them as well.
For the time being, switching to dev_* functions makes the
driver's logs more informative than pr_* functions.
I would rather not divide ena_com functions to use netdev_* and
dev_* according to net_device allocative state just for this
patch. Doing so, besides doing quite some work for a temporary
solution, wouldn't provide a full solution (same as it doesn't in
this patch).
As stated, a more complete solution is in the works. We can look
at the glass as being half full, and decide that this patch
improves the previous situation even if not in the most optimal
solution.
thanks,
Shay
Powered by blists - more mailing lists