On Wednesday 30 March 2005 4:30 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
ChangeSet 1.2181.4.72, 2005/03/24 15:31:29-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PATCH] USB: usbnet uses netif_msg_*() ethtool filtering This converts most of the usbnet code to actually use the ethtool message flags. The ASIX code is left untouched, since there are a bunch of patches pending there ... that's where the remaining handful of "sparse -Wbitwise" warnings come from. Signed-off-by: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It would be nice if people at least CC'd me on net driver patches.
Sorry. When drivers fit multiple classifications (e.g. USB _and_ NET, or USB _and_ PCI _and_ PM, etc) it's unfortunately routine that not all interested parties see them until something hits LKML. Even when the changes have significant cross-subsystem impact (these don't).
I don't care who merges the patches -- presumably the current system works just fine -- but netdev@oss.sgi.com and I should be reviewing the patches.
netfi_msg_ifdown() is only for __interface__ up/down events; as such, there should be only one message of this type in dev->open(), and one message of this type in dev->stop().
I was going by the only writeup I've ever seen, which doesn't mention such a rule at all. The messages you highlighted are compatible with these rules: the interface is actually going down at that point.
http://www.tux.org/hypermail/linux-vortex/2001-Nov/0021.html
If there are other rules, they belong in Documentation/netif-msg.txt don't they? That way folk won't be forced to guess. Or risk accidentally following the "wrong" set of rules...
I don't see from the code that the struct net_device interface is going down (via dev->stop) at that point. Am I mistaken?
Moreover, if you look at any other user of netif_msg_if{up,down}, you will see that it does not produce multiple lines of status register information opaque to anyone but the programmer. Its not a debugging message, but something a user should feel comfortable enabling (if not enabled by default).
@@ -3044,7 +3047,7 @@
memset(urb->transfer_buffer, 0, urb->transfer_buffer_length); status = usb_submit_urb (urb, GFP_ATOMIC); - if (status != 0) + if (status != 0 && netif_msg_timer (dev)) deverr(dev, "intr resubmit --> %d", status); }
this looks more like a debugging message?
It's an error of the "what do I do now??" variety, triggered by what's effectively a timer callback. USB interrupt transfers are polled by the host controller according to a schedule that's maintained by the HCD.
The above example seems more like netif_msg_tx_err() or even just KERN_ERR ?
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
