On Fri, 2021-11-26 at 10:19 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:19:11 +0100 Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > -void bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(u32 act)
> > +void bpf_warn_invalid_xdp_action(struct net_device *dev, struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 act)
> > {
> > const u32 act_max = XDP_REDIRECT;
> >
> > - pr_warn_once("%s XDP return value %u, expect packet loss!\n",
> > + pr_warn_once("%s XDP return value %u on prog %s (id %d) dev %s, expect packet loss!\n",
> > act > act_max ? "Illegal" : "Driver unsupported",
> > - act);
> > + act, prog->aux->name, prog->aux->id, dev->name ? dev->name : "");
> > }
>
> Since we have to touch all the drivers each time the prototype of this
> function is changed - would it make sense to pass in rxq instead? It has
> more info which may become useful at some point.
I *think* for this specific scenario the device name provides all the
necessary info - the users need to know the driver causing the issue.
Others similar xdp helpers - e.g. trace_xdp_exception() - have the same
arguments list used here. If the rxq is useful I guess we will have to
change even them, and touch all the drivers anyway.
Cheers,
Paolo
