Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:44:14PM CEST, michal.swiatkow...@linux.intel.com wrote:
>On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:04:23PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:37:23AM CEST, michal.swiatkow...@linux.intel.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> >+int ice_devlink_create_sf_port(struct ice_dynamic_port *dyn_port)
>> >+{
>> >+ struct devlink_port_attrs attrs = {};
>> >+ struct devlink_port *devlink_port;
>> >+ struct devlink *devlink;
>> >+ struct ice_vsi *vsi;
>> >+ struct device *dev;
>> >+ struct ice_pf *pf;
>> >+ int err;
>> >+
>> >+ vsi = dyn_port->vsi;
>> >+ pf = dyn_port->pf;
>> >+ dev = ice_pf_to_dev(pf);
>> >+
>> >+ devlink_port = &dyn_port->devlink_port;
>> >+
>> >+ attrs.flavour = DEVLINK_PORT_FLAVOUR_PCI_SF;
>> >+ attrs.pci_sf.pf = pf->hw.bus.func;
>> >+ attrs.pci_sf.sf = dyn_port->sfnum;
>> >+
>> >+ devlink_port_attrs_set(devlink_port, &attrs);
>> >+ devlink = priv_to_devlink(pf);
>> >+
>> >+ err = devl_port_register_with_ops(devlink, devlink_port, vsi->idx,
>> >+ &ice_devlink_port_sf_ops);
>> >+ if (err) {
>> >+ dev_err(dev, "Failed to create devlink port for Subfunction %d",
>> >+ vsi->idx);
>>
>> Either use extack or avoid this error message entirely. Could you please
>> double you don't write dmesg error messages in case you have extack
>> available in the rest of this patchset?
>>
>>
>
>Sure, I can avoid, as this is called from port representor creeation
>function. I don't want to pass extack there (code is generic for VF and
>SF, and VF call doesn't have extack).
>
>We have this pattern in few place in code (using dev_err even extack can
>be passed). Is it recommended to pass extact to all functions
>which probably want to write some message in case of error (assuming the
>call context has the extack)?
Always.
>
>> >+ return err;
>> >+ }
>> >+
>> >+ return 0;
>> >+}
>> >+
>>
>> [...]
