On 10/11/19 12:45 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> So to me this looks fine.
>
> I don't really share the concern about extack being netlink specific and
> then using it here - it ultimately doesn't matter whether this thing is
> called "netlink_extack" or "extended_error_reporting", IMHO.
+1
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 19:04 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > if (reporter->auto_recover)
> > - return devlink_health_reporter_recover(reporter, priv_ctx);
> > + return devlink_health_reporter_recover(reporter,
> > + priv_ctx,
Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:04:29AM CEST, jakub.kicin...@netronome.com wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:18:49 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko
>>
>> During health reporter operations, driver might want to fill-up
>> the extack message, so propagate extack down to the health reporter ops.
>>
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:18:49 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko
>
> During health reporter operations, driver might want to fill-up
> the extack message, so propagate extack down to the health reporter ops.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko
> @@ -507,11 +507,14 @@ enum devlink_health_repo
From: Jiri Pirko
During health reporter operations, driver might want to fill-up
the extack message, so propagate extack down to the health reporter ops.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko
---
.../net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_devlink.c | 9 ++---
.../mellanox/mlx5/core/en/reporter_rx.c |
