Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:08:52AM CEST, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Sat, 25 May 2019 00:26:35 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Fri, May 24, 2019 at 05:54:46PM CEST, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>> >On Fri, 24 May 2019 10:11:10 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> Thu, May 23, 2019 at 05:19:46PM CEST, dsah...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >On 5/23/19 3:45 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> >> >> @@ -57,11 +58,13 @@ static int mlxfw_fsm_state_wait(struct mlxfw_dev
>> >> >> *mlxfw_dev, u32 fwhandle,
>> >> >> if (fsm_state_err != MLXFW_FSM_STATE_ERR_OK) {
>> >> >> pr_err("Firmware flash failed: %s\n",
>> >> >> mlxfw_fsm_state_err_str[fsm_state_err]);
>> >> >> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Firmware flash failed");
>> >> >> return -EINVAL;
>> >> >> }
>> >> >> if (curr_fsm_state != fsm_state) {
>> >> >> if (--times == 0) {
>> >> >> pr_err("Timeout reached on FSM state change");
>> >> >> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Timeout reached on
>> >> >> FSM state change");
>> >> >
>> >> >FSM? Is the meaning obvious to users?
>> >>
>> >> It is specific to mlx drivers.
>> >
>> >What does it stand for? Isn't it just Finite State Machine?
>>
>> I believe so.
>
>In which case it doesn't really add much, no? I second David's request
>to make the messages as easy to understand as possible.
Well, FSM is something that is used in the code and known. I would
change it to "finite state machine" (which I'm still not sure it
really is) but I don't believe that would bring more info to the user.
Well, nothing. On contrary, a MLX engineer might get confused if customer
sends him the message, because he is used to "FSM" :)
Same with "MFA2" in the other message. I only know it is the format
of the binary, have no clue what it actually stands for (other than
it is version 2).
>
>PSID for better or worse I have previously capitulated on, so I guess
>the ship has indeed sailed there :)
>
>$ grep -A4 psid -- Documentation/networking/devlink-info-versions.rst
>fw.psid
>=======
>
>Unique identifier of the firmware parameter set.
