[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2021 03:02:35 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: combine netlink and console error
messages
On Sat, 2021-08-07 at 17:54 -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> On 8/6/21 11:52 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-08-06 at 23:30 -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:
> > > There seems to be no reason to have different error messages between
> > > netlink and printk. It also cleans up the function slightly.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > []
> > > +#define BOND_NL_ERR(bond_dev, extack, errmsg) do { \
> > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, errmsg); \
> > > + netdev_err(bond_dev, "Error: " errmsg "\n"); \
> > > +} while (0)
> > > +
> > > +#define SLAVE_NL_ERR(bond_dev, slave_dev, extack, errmsg) do { \
> > > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, errmsg); \
> > > + slave_err(bond_dev, slave_dev, "Error: " errmsg "\n"); \
> > > +} while (0)
> >
> > If you are doing this, it's probably smaller object code to use
> > "%s", errmsg
> > as the errmsg string can be reused
> >
> > #define BOND_NL_ERR(bond_dev, extack, errmsg) \
> > do { \
> > NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, errmsg); \
> > netdev_err(bond_dev, "Error: %s\n", errmsg); \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > #define SLAVE_NL_ERR(bond_dev, slave_dev, extack, errmsg) \
> > do { \
> > NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, errmsg); \
> > slave_err(bond_dev, slave_dev, "Error: %s\n", errmsg); \
> > } while (0)
> >
> >
>
> I like the thought and would agree if not for how NL_SET_ERR_MSG is
> coded. Unfortunately it does not appear as though doing the above change
> actually generates smaller object code. Maybe I have incorrectly
> interpreted something?
No, it's because you are compiling allyesconfig or equivalent.
Try defconfig with bonding.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists