On 2015/1/20 4:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 19 January 2015 19:11:11 Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> After hammering on the box a bit again, I'm in a situation where I get >> lots of >> >> [302398.232603] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302398.377309] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302398.395198] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302398.466118] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302398.659009] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302399.053389] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302399.122067] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302399.268192] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302399.286081] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302399.594201] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302399.683416] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> [302399.701307] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop >> >> and I really am getting a lot of drops - I can't even ping the machine >> anymore. >> >> However, as it is there's a good chance the machine is simply >> unreachable because it's busy writing to the UART, and even if not all >> useful messages indicating anything have scrolled out. I really don't >> think you should emit any message over and over again to the user. Once >> or twice is enough. >> >> Please make sure to rate limit it. > > I would argue that packet loss is not an error condition at all > and you should not print this at netdev_err() level. You could make > this a netdev_dbg(), or just make it silent because it's already > counted in the statistics. > I think something wrong with Graf's board, I will try to make it happen on my board, and in any case I will add rate limit to xx_drop and change to dbg log level. Thanks Ding > Arnd > > . > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
