On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: > Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:00:47AM CEST, sfel...@gmail.com wrote: >>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/10/15 2:56 PM, sfel...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> Fix a BUG() where CONFIG_NET_SWITCHDEV is set but the driver for a bridged >>>>> port does not support switchdec_port_attr_set op. Don't BUG() if >>>>> -EOPNOTSUPP is returned. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> >>>>> Reported-by: Brenden Blanco <bbla...@plumgrid.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 2 +- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >>>>> index e008057..99bced4 100644 >>>>> --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >>>>> +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >>>>> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static void switchdev_port_attr_set_work(struct >>>>> work_struct *work) >>>>> >>>>> rtnl_lock(); >>>>> err = switchdev_port_attr_set(asw->dev, &asw->attr); >>>>> - BUG_ON(err); >>>>> + BUG_ON(err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP); >>>>> rtnl_unlock(); >>>>> >>>>> dev_put(asw->dev); >>>>> >>>> >>>> Should that be WARN_ON instead of BUG_ON? >>> >>> I think I had it as WARN when we were working on the initial patches, >>> but we changed it to BUG_ON because we should only get an error here >>> if the driver screwed something up between PREPARE phase and COMMIT >>> phase, so it should be considered a driver bug which needs fixing. >> >>Actually, ignore what I said above. I was confusing this BUG_ON with >>the one in switchdev_port_attr_set(). Perhaps this BUG_ON() you're >>commenting on should be WARN(). A driver could return an err in >>PREPARE phase and that shouldn't be a BUG_ON situation; seems WARN >>would be better. It the case where the driver returns an err in >>COMMIT phase but didn't return an err in PREPARE phase we want to >>BUG_ON(). Maybe that case doesn't justify BUG_ON either, based on the >>link you posted. >> >>Jiri, IIRC, you suggested the BUG_ON(). Does it still sound right >>based on the point David is raising? > > Hmm, looking at code of switchdev_port_attr_set. In case that fails in > prepare state (which can easily happen for example due to -ENOMEM) this > BUG_ON is hit as well. That is not right. I think we should change it > just to warning. Also I think that prink (or a flavour) is more suitable > here than WARN.
Thanks, I'll change it to netdev_err. > Btw, why switchdev_port_obj_add has WARN and not BUG ? Not sure. We should be consistent. WARN seems better for both obj_add/attr_set than BUG, given the link David Ahern posted. Do you agree? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
