On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 09:07:20AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/11/17 8:13 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:41:05AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> >> static struct mlxsw_sp_vr *mlxsw_sp_vr_create(struct mlxsw_sp *mlxsw_sp,
> >> - u32 tb_id)
> >> + u32 tb_id,
> >> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> >> {
> >> struct mlxsw_sp_vr *vr;
> >> int err;
> >>
> >> vr = mlxsw_sp_vr_find_unused(mlxsw_sp);
> >> - if (!vr)
> >> + if (!vr) {
> >> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "spectrum: Exceeded number of supported
> >> VRF");
> >
> > Maybe:
> > "spectrum: Exceeded number of supported VRF devices"
>
> In this context the overflow is virtual routers in spectrum as opposed
> to VRF devices in the kernel context. The existence of the VRF device
> has no bearing until a port is enslaved to it.
>
> How about:
> "spectrum: Exceeded number of supported virtual routers"
OK.
