On 19/09/2023 16:19, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:25:00AM +0000, Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) wrote: >> >> >> On 19/09/2023 09:11, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 8:57 AM Zhijian Li (Fujitsu) >>> <lizhijian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18/09/2023 20:37, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:05:43AM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote: >>>>>> rxe_set_mtu() will call rxe_info_dev() to print message, and >>>>>> rxe_info_dev() expects dev_name(rxe->ib_dev->dev) has been assigned. >>>>>> >>>>>> Previously since dev_name() is not set, when a new rxe link is being >>>>>> added, 'null' will be used as the dev_name like: >>>>>> >>>>>> "(null): rxe_set_mtu: Set mtu to 1024" >>>>>> >>>>>> Move rxe_register_device() earlier to assign the correct dev_name >>>>>> so that it can be read by rxe_set_mtu() later. >>>>> >>>>> I would expect removal of that print line instead of moving >>>>> rxe_register_device(). >>>> >>>> >>>> I also struggled with this point. The last option is keep it as it is. >>>> Once rxe is registered, this print will work fine. >>> >>> I delved into the source code. About moving rxe_register_device, I >>> could not find any harm to the driver. >> >> The point i'm struggling was that, it's strange/opaque to move rxe_register_device(). >> There is no doubt that the original order was more clear. >> >> In terms of the message content, is it valuable to print(pr_info) this message > > I doubt if that print has any value in day-to-day use of RXE. Bob, As you are one of the active RXE users, any comments about this print content. Thanks > > Thanks
