> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 10:42 AM
> To: Loktionov, Aleksandr <[email protected]>; ALOK TIWARI
> <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Anthony L
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; Lobakin, Aleksander
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [External] : RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v2]
> iavf: clarify VLAN add/delete log messages and lower 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
> but keep in mind that "virtchnl v2" is a completely different thing
> introduced by idpf
>
> here we are really talking about more and more subtle things I would
> just say:
> Too many VLAN add (v1) requests; splitting into multiple messages to
> PF and similar for other cases
>
> I hope that this will make everyone happy (feel free to keep my tags)
Yes Przemek, you pointed a problem, here virtchnl_v2 does not fit (because it's
different thing from idpf).
But anyway it's better to have virtlchnl: prefix to preserve consistency.
So, I correct my opinion, and advise:
Use virtchnl: as the dmesg prefix in iavf
- Rationale: iavf speaks virtchnl v1; “vvfl” is an internal detail
(VLAN filter list) that’s not a stable cross‑driver concept and
will not mean much to most readers.
virtchnl: is the de‑facto, long‑standing tag across drivers and reviews.
- Do not prefix with virtchnl v2: in iavf. “virtchnl v2” is the IDPF world;
using it in iavf will confuse folks and grep results.
I propose:
"virtchnl: Too many VLAN add (v1) requests; splitting into multiple messages to
PF"
"virtchnl: Too many VLAN delete (v1) requests; splitting into multiple messages
to PF"
i.e:
- Put “(v1)” in the sentence (not the prefix) to disambiguate from
IDPF/virtchnl v2.
- Keep “PF” (physical function) in the text—well‑known term to iavf users and
netdev reviewers.
- Avoid “vvfl”/“vvfl_v2” in user‑facing logs; it’s an internal identifier,
not a user‑visible protocol.
- Keep virtchnl: prefix for all virtchnl protocol‑related logs in iavf
(negotiation, capabilities, message batching, etc.).
With the best regards
Alex
