| Message ID | 20230315-net-20230315-hsr_framereg-ratelimit-v1-1-61d2ef176d11@tessares.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 1b0120e4db0bf2838d1ce741195ce4b7cc100b91 |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] hsr: ratelimit only when errors are printed | expand |
Hi Mattieu, Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com> On Wed, 2023-03-15 at 21:25 +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > Recently, when automatically merging -net and net-next in MPTCP devel > tree, our CI reported [1] a conflict in hsr, the same as the one > reported by Stephen in netdev [2]. > > When looking at the conflict, I noticed it is in fact the v1 [3] that > has been applied in -net and the v2 [4] in net-next. Maybe the v1 was > applied by accident. > > As mentioned by Jakub Kicinski [5], the new condition makes more sense > before the net_ratelimit(), not to update net_ratelimit's state which is > unnecessary if we're not going to print either way. > > Here, this modification applies the v2 but in -net. > > Link: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/actions/runs/4423171069 [1] > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230315100914.53fc1760@canb.auug.org.au/ [2] > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230307133229.127442-1-koverskeid@gmail.com/ [3] > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230309092302.179586-1-koverskeid@gmail.com/ [4] > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230308232001.2fb62013@kernel.org/ [5] > Fixes: 28e8cabe80f3 ("net: hsr: Don't log netdev_err message on unknown prp dst node") > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> > --- > net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c b/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c > index 865eda39d601..b77f1189d19d 100644 > --- a/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c > +++ b/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c > @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ void hsr_addr_subst_dest(struct hsr_node *node_src, struct sk_buff *skb, > node_dst = find_node_by_addr_A(&port->hsr->node_db, > eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest); > if (!node_dst) { > - if (net_ratelimit() && port->hsr->prot_version != PRP_V1) > + if (port->hsr->prot_version != PRP_V1 && net_ratelimit()) > netdev_err(skb->dev, "%s: Unknown node\n", __func__); > return; > } > > --- > base-commit: 75014826d0826d175aa9e36cd8e118793263e3f4 > change-id: 20230315-net-20230315-hsr_framereg-ratelimit-3c8ff6e43511 > > Best regards, > -- > Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> > BR Steen
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 21:25:17 +0100 Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Recently, when automatically merging -net and net-next in MPTCP devel > tree, our CI reported [1] a conflict in hsr, the same as the one > reported by Stephen in netdev [2]. > > When looking at the conflict, I noticed it is in fact the v1 [3] that > has been applied in -net and the v2 [4] in net-next. Maybe the v1 was > applied by accident. Ah, thank you! I didn't even notice that the version which went into net was v1 :S
Hello: This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (main) by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>: On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 21:25:17 +0100 you wrote: > Recently, when automatically merging -net and net-next in MPTCP devel > tree, our CI reported [1] a conflict in hsr, the same as the one > reported by Stephen in netdev [2]. > > When looking at the conflict, I noticed it is in fact the v1 [3] that > has been applied in -net and the v2 [4] in net-next. Maybe the v1 was > applied by accident. > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [net] hsr: ratelimit only when errors are printed https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/1b0120e4db0b You are awesome, thank you!
diff --git a/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c b/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c index 865eda39d601..b77f1189d19d 100644 --- a/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c +++ b/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ void hsr_addr_subst_dest(struct hsr_node *node_src, struct sk_buff *skb, node_dst = find_node_by_addr_A(&port->hsr->node_db, eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest); if (!node_dst) { - if (net_ratelimit() && port->hsr->prot_version != PRP_V1) + if (port->hsr->prot_version != PRP_V1 && net_ratelimit()) netdev_err(skb->dev, "%s: Unknown node\n", __func__); return; }
Recently, when automatically merging -net and net-next in MPTCP devel tree, our CI reported [1] a conflict in hsr, the same as the one reported by Stephen in netdev [2]. When looking at the conflict, I noticed it is in fact the v1 [3] that has been applied in -net and the v2 [4] in net-next. Maybe the v1 was applied by accident. As mentioned by Jakub Kicinski [5], the new condition makes more sense before the net_ratelimit(), not to update net_ratelimit's state which is unnecessary if we're not going to print either way. Here, this modification applies the v2 but in -net. Link: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/actions/runs/4423171069 [1] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230315100914.53fc1760@canb.auug.org.au/ [2] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230307133229.127442-1-koverskeid@gmail.com/ [3] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230309092302.179586-1-koverskeid@gmail.com/ [4] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230308232001.2fb62013@kernel.org/ [5] Fixes: 28e8cabe80f3 ("net: hsr: Don't log netdev_err message on unknown prp dst node") Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> --- net/hsr/hsr_framereg.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- base-commit: 75014826d0826d175aa9e36cd8e118793263e3f4 change-id: 20230315-net-20230315-hsr_framereg-ratelimit-3c8ff6e43511 Best regards,