On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 21:28 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:34:57PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> ...
> > @@ -895,6 +904,14 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net,
> > struct tcf_proto *tp,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
> > + net_warn_ratelimited("invalid %d action value, using "
> > + "TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead", a->tcfa_action);
>
> Now that it is reporting the error via extack, do we really need this
> warn net_warn?
> extack will be shown as a warning by iproute2 even if the command
> succeeds.
That was requested by Jiri (modulo misinterpretation on my side).
My understanding is that the extact will warn the whoever tryed to push
the bad configuration, while the net_warn is targeting the hosts
administrator.
Jiri, do you have strong opinion on this or did I misinterpret your
wording/ can I drop the net_warn?
Thanks!
> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using "
> > + "TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead");
>
> Quoted strings shouldn't be broken down into multiple lines..
Thanks,
will fix in v5 :(
Cheers,
Paolo
