> I do think that's an improvement. One more tweak: how about "CFM > faults" instead of "CFM fault status". To me the former more clearly > implies that everything in each list is a fault, whereas the latter > talks more vaguely about a "status".
Sounds good, I'll tweak the patch and send out another version. Ethan > > Thanks, > > Ben. > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:14:32AM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> I'm not sure what a better wording would be. Perhaps something like >> the following? >> >> CFM fault status changed from [] to [rdi interval]. The brakets make >> it clear that it's a list. >> >> Ethan >> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:10:59PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: >> >> This patch makes a two improvements to CFM logging which should >> >> make debugging connectivity problems a more intuitive. First, when >> >> a remote_mp disappears, the length of time since its last CCM >> >> reception is logged. Second, the "CFM fault status changed" >> >> message is reformatted in a more intuitive way. Instead of >> >> prefixing additions and deletions with pluses and minuses, the full >> >> old fault status and new fault status are logged. >> >> >> >> Requested-by: Ben Basler <bbas...@nicira.com>, >> >> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> >> > >> > I think this goes back to our dinnertime discussion where I was saying >> > that diffs are easy to read and Rajiv was saying he didn't understand >> > them ;-) >> > >> > The only possible issue that I see here is that: >> > CFM fault status changed: (old:) (new: recv) >> > and >> > CFM fault status changed: (old: recv) (new:) >> > both seem rather badly phrased. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
