On 9/16/22 17:56, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:47:54PM -0500, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> >>> Maybe you could add a flag or other indicator which would indicate the overlay will never be >>> removed. Then your code could rely on this property to inform on if the author >>> has consider the removal issues related to overlays. >> >> No. I guess I wasn't clear enough above, where I said: >> >> "And I will not accept a >> change that suppresses the message if there is no expectation to remove the >> overlay." >> >> There are multiple reasons for this, but the most fundamental is that if a >> new overlay is not removable, then any overlay already applied can not be >> removed (because overlays must be removed in the reverse order that they >> are applied). It would be incredibly bad architecture to allow an overlay >> to block another overlay from being removed. > > So how about an option to turn off removable overlays entirely? As far as I can > tell it's not used currently by the tiny number of implementation I've seen. > > Cisco doesn't need it, and we could have a smaller kernel without it. > > The issue is that the error log on blast is log level abuse in my opinion. If > there's no way to fix it, it should not be an error. The way to fix it is to not have a construct in the overlay that triggers the message. In other words, do not add a property to a pre-existing node. (At least I think that is what is the underlying cause, if I recall correctly.) -Frank > > Daniel
