Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] bonding: combine netlink and console error messages

On Sat, 2021-08-07 at 17:54 -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:

On 8/6/21 11:52 PM, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2021-08-06 at 23:30 -0400, Jonathan Toppins wrote:

quoted

There seems to be no reason to have different error messages between
netlink and printk. It also cleans up the function slightly.

[]

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c

[]

quoted

+#define BOND_NL_ERR(bond_dev, extack, errmsg) do {		\
+	NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, errmsg);				\
+	netdev_err(bond_dev, "Error: " errmsg "\n");		\
+} while (0)
+
+#define SLAVE_NL_ERR(bond_dev, slave_dev, extack, errmsg) do {	\
+	NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, errmsg);				\
+	slave_err(bond_dev, slave_dev, "Error: " errmsg "\n");	\
+} while (0)

If you are doing this, it's probably smaller object code to use
	"%s", errmsg
as the errmsg string can be reused

#define BOND_NL_ERR(bond_dev, extack, errmsg)			\
do {								\
	NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, errmsg);				\
	netdev_err(bond_dev, "Error: %s\n", errmsg);		\
} while (0)

#define SLAVE_NL_ERR(bond_dev, slave_dev, extack, errmsg)	\
do {								\
	NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, errmsg);				\
	slave_err(bond_dev, slave_dev, "Error: %s\n", errmsg);	\
} while (0)

I like the thought and would agree if not for how NL_SET_ERR_MSG is 
coded. Unfortunately it does not appear as though doing the above change 
actually generates smaller object code. Maybe I have incorrectly 
interpreted something?

No, it's because you are compiling allyesconfig or equivalent.
Try defconfig with bonding.