| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: patch for common networking error messages |
| From: | Janice M Girouard <janiceg@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:59:11 -0500 |
| Cc: | linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Daniel Stekloff <stekloff@xxxxxxxxxx>, Janice Girouard <girouard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Larry Kessler <lkessler@xxxxxxxxxx>, kenistonj@xxxxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | IBM Linux Technology Center - Network Device Drivers |
| References: | <3EEE28DE.6040808@us.ibm.com> <20030616.133841.35533284.davem@redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 |
I agree that it's not desirable to introduce a bunch of messages that we
aren't already logging. I didn't show the netif_msg prefix because I
was trying to focus the patch on the common messages, but you would
normally proceed a message with:if netif_msg_link()
printk("some text to indicate the link is up/down")The netif_msg_link test would normally filter out what messages should be logged. Or, just leave out the message call. I added one or two messages to the tg3 and e1000 drivers to demonstrate where you might use these common messages... just to show that various drivers could use the text. Actually using the specific message would be completely up to the developer. Jaince David S. Miller wrote: From: Janice M Girouard <janiceg@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:30:22 -0500 |
| Previous by Date: | is it expected behaviour to receive one's own broadcast messages?, Chris Friesen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] alloc_netdev for shaper, Stephen Hemminger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: patch for common networking error messages, Andrew Morton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: patch for common networking error messages, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |