> -----Original Message----- > From: ALOK TIWARI <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 8:59 AM > To: Loktionov, Aleksandr <[email protected]>; Kitszel, > Przemyslaw <[email protected]>; Lobakin, Aleksander > <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Anthony L > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [External] : RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v2] > iavf: clarify VLAN add/delete log messages and lower log level > > > > On 11/5/2025 12:59 PM, Loktionov, Aleksandr wrote: > >> The current dev_warn messages for too many VLAN changes are > confusing > >> and one place incorrectly references "add" instead of "delete" > VLANs > >> due to copy-paste errors. > >> > >> - Use dev_info instead of dev_warn to lower the log level. > >> - Rephrase the message to: "[vvfl|vvfl_v2] Too many VLAN > [add|delete] > >> requests; splitting into multiple messages to PF". > >> > >> Suggested-by: Przemek Kitszel<[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Alok Tiwari<[email protected]> > >> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel<[email protected]> > >> --- > >> v1 -> v2 > >> remove "\n" b/w message > >> added vvfl and vvfl_v2 prefix > > Why vvfl and vvfl_v2 prefix? For me 'virtchnl:' 'virtchnl v2:' > looks more clear. > > Can you explain? > > I am trying to follow the code path, as vvfl refers to the virtchnl > VLAN filter list. It’s just a way to segregate the logic between the > if/else conditions. > Either 'virtchnl:' or 'virtchnl v2:' also sound good to me. > > Happy to go with whichever you prefer. > There is only single mention of vvfl recently (just 4years) and only in iavf driver. virtchnl exist for decade or so:
linux/drivers/net$ grep -rn vvfl | wc -l 43 linux/drivers/net$ grep -rn virtchnl | wc -l 1240 Please use more common historical prefix. Thank you > > > > Thank you > > > > ... > > > Thanks, > Alok
