Re: [PATCH net-next v13 3/3] net: hisilicon: new hip04 ethernet driver

On 2015/1/20 4:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Monday 19 January 2015 19:11:11 Alexander Graf wrote:

quoted

After hammering on the box a bit again, I'm in a situation where I get 
lots of

[302398.232603] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302398.377309] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302398.395198] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302398.466118] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302398.659009] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302399.053389] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302399.122067] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302399.268192] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302399.286081] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302399.594201] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302399.683416] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
[302399.701307] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop

and I really am getting a lot of drops - I can't even ping the machine 
anymore.

However, as it is there's a good chance the machine is simply 
unreachable because it's busy writing to the UART, and even if not all 
useful messages indicating anything have scrolled out. I really don't 
think you should emit any message over and over again to the user. Once 
or twice is enough.

Please make sure to rate limit it.

I would argue that packet loss is not an error condition at all
and you should not print this at netdev_err() level. You could make
this a netdev_dbg(), or just make it silent because it's already
counted in the statistics.

I think something wrong with Graf's board, I will try to make it happen on my board, and 
in any case I will add rate limit to xx_drop and change to dbg log level.

Thanks 
Ding

	Arnd

.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html