From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sched: cls: enable verbose logging Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 13:30:53 -0700 Message-ID: References: <763cd60ed7addf605daf8b77c8639c5c08ada219.1526243501.git.marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers , Jakub Kicinski , David Ahern , Stephen Hemminger , Jiri Pirko , Alexander Aring , Jamal Hadi Salim To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:45129 "EHLO mail-pf0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751498AbeENUbO (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2018 16:31:14 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f178.google.com with SMTP id c10-v6so6551510pfi.12 for ; Mon, 14 May 2018 13:31:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <763cd60ed7addf605daf8b77c8639c5c08ada219.1526243501.git.marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > Currently, when the rule is not to be exclusively executed by the > hardware, extack is not passed along and offloading failures don't > get logged. The idea was that hardware failures are okay because the > rule will get executed in software then and this way it doesn't confuse > unware users. > > But this is not helpful in case one needs to understand why a certain > rule failed to get offloaded. Considering it may have been a temporary > failure, like resources exceeded or so, reproducing it later and knowing > that it is triggering the same reason may be challenging. I fail to understand why you need a flag here, IOW, why not just pass extack unconditionally?