lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.047 / U:72.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site