David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/17 5:32 AM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/core/rtnetlink.c b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> > index e84d108cfee4..19ea53a5210f 100644
> > --- a/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> > +++ b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
> > @@ -3066,21 +3066,22 @@ int ndo_dflt_fdb_add(struct ndmsg *ndm,
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(ndo_dflt_fdb_add);
> >
> > -static int fdb_vid_parse(struct nlattr *vlan_attr, u16 *p_vid)
> > +static int fdb_vid_parse(struct nlattr *vlan_attr, u16 *p_vid,
> > + struct netlink_ext_ack *exta)
> > {
> > u16 vid = 0;
> >
> > if (vlan_attr) {
> > if (nla_len(vlan_attr) != sizeof(u16)) {
> > - pr_info("PF_BRIDGE: RTM_NEWNEIGH with invalid vlan\n");
> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(exta, "RTM_NEWNEIGH with invalid vlan");
>
> I realize you are keeping the existing wording, but the messages are
> moving from out of line pr_info to inline message in response to a user
> command. From a user's perspective the RTM_NEWNEIGH and DELNEIGH do not
> add much value, and the add and del in the bridge command tells which it
> is. So in this case just emit "Invalid vlan id".
Right, makes sense.
> Although this failure is an invalid vlan attribute as opposed to an
> invalid vlan id which is what the next message checks. So the message
> needs to be updated as well.
Indeed, I'll send a v2, thanks!
