Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2010-03-25 14:08, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Why don't you remove the now unused PRINTR macro?
>>
> Oversight, thanks for catching.
>
>>> @@ -294,7 +294,8 @@ clusterip_tg(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct xt_target_param *par)
>>>
>>> ct = nf_ct_get(skb, &ctinfo);
>>> if (ct == NULL) {
>>> - printk(KERN_ERR "CLUSTERIP: no conntrack!\n");
>>> + if (net_ratelimit())
>>> + pr_info("no conntrack!\n");
>> There are a few changes in log level in this file and other files
>> that need more explanation in the changelog than "supplement to ...".
>>
>>> - printk(KERN_WARNING "CLUSTERIP: unknown mode `%u'\n",
>>> - cipinfo->hash_mode);
>>> + pr_info("unknown mode %u\n", cipinfo->hash_mode);
>> pr_err() actually seems more appropriate, if we'd use it consistenly
>> to report error conditions.
>
> I felt that EINVAL parameter problems are not enough of an error
> condition to warrant the error level. It's not critical (as in:
> printer on fire), error I would associate with sda rejecting I/O,
> warning that an NFS server is slow to respond, notice that disk space
> is getting below 5% (not that the kernel does that, but that would be
> my judgment). The messages printed by checkentry functions is IMO
> just an additional information to the -EINVAL that's returned. Of course
> we can always change it anyway.
Fair enough, but some consistency among modules would be great. There
are a few instances of pr_err/warning used for memory allocation errors
or invalid parameters in this patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
