netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH next-queue v5 3/4] igc: Enable PCIe PTM

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]

Date:   Wed, 09 Jun 2021 17:04:09 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc:     Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        richardcochran@...il.com, hch@...radead.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH next-queue v5 3/4] igc: Enable PCIe PTM

Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 04:07:20PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> >> 
>> >>> Regarding my comment, I did not mean returning an error but the log
>> >>> *level* of the message. So, `dmesg --level err` would show that message.
>> >>> But if there are PCI controllers not supporting that, it’s not an error,
>> >>> but a warning at most. So, I’d use:
>> >>>
>> >>> 	dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "PTM not supported by PCI bus/controller
>> >>> (pci_enable_ptm() failed)\n");
>> >> 
>> >> I will use you suggestion for the message, but I think that warn is a
>> >> bit too much, info or notice seem to be better.
>> >
>> > I do not know, if modern PCI(e)(?) controllers normally support PTM or 
>> > not. If recent controllers should support it, then a warning would be 
>> > warranted, otherwise a notice.
>> 
>> From the Intel side, it seems that it's been supported for a few years.
>> So, fair enough, let's go with a warn.
>
> I'm not sure about this.  I think "warning" messages interrupt distro
> graphical boot scenarios and cause user complaints.  In this case,
> there is nothing broken and the user can do nothing about it; it's
> merely a piece of missing optional functionality.  So I think "info"
> is a more appropriate level.

Good point. "info" it is, then. 


Cheers,
-- 
Vinicius