Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:09:31 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] USB: usbnet uses netif_msg_*() ethtool filtering |
| |
David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 30 March 2005 4:30 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote: >> >>>ChangeSet 1.2181.4.72, 2005/03/24 15:31:29-08:00, david-b@pacbell.net >>> >>> [PATCH] USB: usbnet uses netif_msg_*() ethtool filtering >>> >>> This converts most of the usbnet code to actually use the ethtool >>> message flags. The ASIX code is left untouched, since there are >>> a bunch of patches pending there ... that's where the remaining >>> handful of "sparse -Wbitwise" warnings come from. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net> >>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> >> >>It would be nice if people at least CC'd me on net driver patches. > > > Sorry. When drivers fit multiple classifications (e.g. USB _and_ NET, > or USB _and_ PCI _and_ PM, etc) it's unfortunately routine that not all > interested parties see them until something hits LKML. Even when the > changes have significant cross-subsystem impact (these don't).
I don't care who merges the patches -- presumably the current system works just fine -- but netdev@oss.sgi.com and I should be reviewing the patches.
>>netfi_msg_ifdown() is only for __interface__ up/down events; as such, >>there should be only one message of this type in dev->open(), and one >>message of this type in dev->stop(). > > > I was going by the only writeup I've ever seen, which doesn't mention > such a rule at all. The messages you highlighted are compatible with > these rules: the interface is actually going down at that point. > > http://www.tux.org/hypermail/linux-vortex/2001-Nov/0021.html > > If there are other rules, they belong in Documentation/netif-msg.txt > don't they? That way folk won't be forced to guess. Or risk > accidentally following the "wrong" set of rules...
I don't see from the code that the struct net_device interface is going down (via dev->stop) at that point. Am I mistaken?
Moreover, if you look at any other user of netif_msg_if{up,down}, you will see that it does not produce multiple lines of status register information opaque to anyone but the programmer. Its not a debugging message, but something a user should feel comfortable enabling (if not enabled by default).
>>>@@ -3044,7 +3047,7 @@ >>> >>> memset(urb->transfer_buffer, 0, urb->transfer_buffer_length); >>> status = usb_submit_urb (urb, GFP_ATOMIC); >>>- if (status != 0) >>>+ if (status != 0 && netif_msg_timer (dev)) >>> deverr(dev, "intr resubmit --> %d", status); >>> } >>> >> >>this looks more like a debugging message? > > > It's an error of the "what do I do now??" variety, triggered by > what's effectively a timer callback. USB interrupt transfers > are polled by the host controller according to a schedule that's > maintained by the HCD.
The above example seems more like netif_msg_tx_err() or even just KERN_ERR ?
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |