[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <873a9e2e933cd811a72f9a06cc97e9f014bc94cd.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:16:47 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, edward.cree@....com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-net-drivers@....com,
davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
habetsm.xilinx@...il.com, marcelo.leitner@...il.com,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 1/3] netlink: add support for formatted
extack messages
On Thu, 2022-10-13 at 08:29 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> I'd do:
>
> pr(extack formatting overflow $__FILE__:$__func__:$__LINE__ $needed_len)
>
> (I think splicing the "trunced extack:" with fmt will result
> in the format string getting stored in .ro twice?)
>
If you worry about the strings (and sizes) then you probably shouldn't
advocate always having __FILE__ and __func__ ;-)
FWIW, my argument earlier was that if we have the truncated string
a) it lets you recover better in a live system
b) the message ought to be enough to figure out where the issue is, and
if the message isn't unique you probably have the problem twice too
But yeah, I'm with "take it or leave it", it all doesn't matter that
much.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists