On 2/2/23 11:58, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 12:14:17PM CET, alejandro.lucero-palau@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero-palau@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> Support for devlink info command.
> You are quite brief for couple hundred line patch. Care to shed some
> more details for the reader? Also, use imperative mood (applies to the
> rest of the pathes)
>
> [...]
>
OK. I'll be more talkative and imperative here.
>> +static int efx_devlink_info_get(struct devlink *devlink,
>> + struct devlink_info_req *req,
>> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>> +{
>> + struct efx_devlink *devlink_private = devlink_priv(devlink);
>> + struct efx_nic *efx = devlink_private->efx;
>> + char msg[NETLINK_MAX_FMTMSG_LEN];
>> + int errors_reported = 0;
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> + /* Several different MCDI commands are used. We report first error
>> + * through extack along with total number of errors. Specific error
>> + * information via system messages.
>> + */
>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_board_cfg(efx, req);
>> + if (rc) {
>> + sprintf(msg, "Getting board info failed");
>> + errors_reported++;
>> + }
>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_stored_versions(efx, req);
>> + if (rc) {
>> + if (!errors_reported)
>> + sprintf(msg, "Getting stored versions failed");
>> + errors_reported += rc;
>> + }
>> + rc = efx_devlink_info_running_versions(efx, req);
>> + if (rc) {
>> + if (!errors_reported)
>> + sprintf(msg, "Getting board info failed");
>> + errors_reported++;
>
> Under which circumstances any of the errors above happen? Is it a common
> thing? Or is it result of some fatal event?
They are not common at all. If any of those happen, it is a bad sign,
and it is more than likely there are more than one because something is
not working properly. That is the reason I only report first error found
plus the total number of errors detected.
>
> You treat it like it is quite common, which seems very odd to me.
> If they are rare, just return error right away to the caller.
Well, that is done now. And as I say, I'm not reporting all but just the
first one, mainly because the buffer limitation with NETLINK_MAX_FMTMSG_LEN.
If errors trigger, a more complete information will appear in system
messages, so that is the reason with:
+ NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT(extack,
+ "%s. %d total errors. Check system messages",
+ msg, errors_reported);
I guess you are concerned with the extack report being overwhelmed, but
I do not think that is the case.
>
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (errors_reported)
>> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_FMT(extack,
>> + "%s. %d total errors. Check system messages",
>> + msg, errors_reported);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static const struct devlink_ops sfc_devlink_ops = {
>> + .info_get = efx_devlink_info_get,
>> };
> [...]
