[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UeBva+gCVHbqS2DL-0dUMSmq883cE6C1JqnehgCUUDBTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:47:18 -0700
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>, kuba@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 02/15] eth: fbnic: add scaffolding for Meta's NIC driver
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 1:33 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> > + * fbnic_init_module - Driver Registration Routine
> > + *
> > + * The first routine called when the driver is loaded. All it does is
> > + * register with the PCI subsystem.
> > + **/
> > +static int __init fbnic_init_module(void)
> > +{
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + pr_info(DRV_SUMMARY " (%s)", fbnic_driver.name);
>
> Please don't spam the kernel log like this. Drivers should only report
> when something goes wrong.
>
> Andrew
Really? I have always used something like this to determine that the
driver isn't there when a user complains that the driver didn't load
on a given device. It isn't as though it would be super spammy as this
is something that is normally only run once when the module is loaded
during early boot, and there isn't a good way to say the module isn't
loaded if the driver itself isn't there.
For example if somebody adds the driver, but forgets to update the
initramfs I can easily call out that it isn't there when I ask for the
logs from the system.
Although I suppose I could meet you halfway. It seems like I am always
posting the message here. If you would prefer I can only display it if
the driver is successfully registered.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists