On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:16:28AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 2/2/21 5:30 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > > > Also, if the message is a common one, one may not be able to easily > > distinguish them. Ideally this shouldn't happen, but when debugging > > applications such as OVS, where lots of netlink requests are flying, > > it saves us time. I can, for example, look at a perf capture and > > search for cls_flower or so. Otherwise, it will all show up as > > "af_netlink: <err_msg>" > > Modules should be using the NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD variant, so the message > would be ""af_netlink: cls_flower: <err_msg>"
Ah, right. They don't always do, though (and that probably should be fixed). Also, currently there is no _MOD variant for NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR. For example: $ git grep NL_SET_ERR_MSG -- cls_flower.c cls_flower.c: NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Failed to setup flow action"); cls_flower.c: NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, cls_flower.c: NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, cls_flower.c: NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Missing MPLS option \"depth\""); ... > > I get the value in knowing the call site, so not arguing against that. > Just hoping that your experience matches theory. Okay. Thanks, Marcelo
