On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 18:54 -0300, marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 07:51:22PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > ... > > > > I understand it is for debug only but i strongly suggest to not > > > > totally > > > > suppress these messages and maybe just move them to tracepoints > > > > buffer > > > > ? for those who would want to really debug .. > > > > > > > > we already have some tracepoints implemented for en_tc.c > > > > mlx5/core/diag/en_tc_tracepoints.c, maybe we should define a > > > > tracepoint > > > > for error reporting .. > > > > > > That, or s/netdev_warn/netdev_dbg/, but both are more hidden to > > > the > > > user than the _once. > > > > > > > i don't see any reason to pollute kernel log with debug messages > > when > > we have tracepoint buffer for en_tc .. > > So we're agreeing that these need to be changed. Good. I would like to wait for the feedback from the CC'ed mlnx TC developers.. I just pinged them, lets see what they think. but i totally agree, TC can support 100k offloads requests per seconds, dumping every possible issue to the kernel log shouldn't be an option,this is not a boot or a fatal error/warning .. > > I don't think a sysadmin would be using tracepoints for > troubleshooting this, but okay. My only objective here is exactly > what > you said, to not pollute kernel log too much with these potentially > repetitive messages. these types of errors are easily reproduce-able, a sysadmin can see and report the errno and the extack message, and in case it is really required, the support or development team can ask to turn on trace- points or debug and reproduce ..
