- Rephrase the message to: "[vvfl|vvfl_v2] Too many VLAN
[add|delete]
requests; splitting into multiple messages to PF".
Suggested-by: Przemek Kitszel<[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alok Tiwari<[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel<[email protected]>
---
v1 -> v2
remove "\n" b/w message
added vvfl and vvfl_v2 prefix
Why vvfl and vvfl_v2 prefix? For me 'virtchnl:' 'virtchnl v2:'
looks more clear.
Can you explain?
I am trying to follow the code path, as vvfl refers to the virtchnl
VLAN filter list. It’s just a way to segregate the logic between the
if/else conditions.
Either 'virtchnl:' or 'virtchnl v2:' also sound good to me.
Happy to go with whichever you prefer.
There is only single mention of vvfl recently (just 4years) and only in iavf
driver.
virtchnl exist for decade or so:
linux/drivers/net$ grep -rn vvfl | wc -l
43
linux/drivers/net$ grep -rn virtchnl | wc -l
1240
Please use more common historical prefix.
Thank you
but keep in mind that "virtchnl v2" is a completely different thing
introduced by idpf
here we are really talking about more and more subtle things
I would just say:
Too many VLAN add (v1) requests; splitting into multiple messages to PF
and similar for other cases
I hope that this will make everyone happy
(feel free to keep my tags)
