Hi Marcelo,
thanks for your feedback.
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleit...@redhat.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 11:55:51PM +0200, Paolo Valerio wrote:
>
> Now that you put these two together:
>
>> As an example, with this patch applied, the following generic message:
>>
>> ovs|00239|netlink_socket|DBG|received NAK error=0 (Operation not supported)
> ^^^
>>
>> becomes:
>>
>> ovs|00239|netlink_socket|DBG|received NAK error=0 - Conntrack isn't enabled
> ^^^
> (more on the error below)
>
> Much better the msg!
>
> ...
>> @@ -910,15 +916,17 @@ nl_sock_transact_multiple__(struct nl_sock *sock,
>> i = seq - base_seq;
>> txn = transactions[i];
>>
>> + const char *err_msg = NULL;
>> /* Fill in the results for 'txn'. */
>> - if (nl_msg_nlmsgerr(buf_txn->reply, &txn->error)) {
>> + if (nl_msg_nlmsgerr(buf_txn->reply, &txn->error, &err_msg)) {
>> + if (txn->error) {
>> + VLOG_DBG_RL(&rl, "received NAK error=%d - %s",
>> + error,
>
> Sounds like 'error' here should have been 'txn->error' ?
>
> error here is the return of nl_sock_recv__(). It's something else.
>
>> + err_msg ? err_msg : ovs_strerror(txn->error));
>> + }
>> if (txn->reply) {
>> ofpbuf_clear(txn->reply);
>> }
>> - if (txn->error) {
>> - VLOG_DBG_RL(&rl, "received NAK error=%d (%s)",
>> - error, ovs_strerror(txn->error));
> ^^^^^
>
You're right, I think it should have been txn->error.
Thanks for noticing.
I'll resend.
>> - }
>> } else {
>> txn->error = 0;
>> if (txn->reply && txn != buf_txn) {
>
> Thanks,
> Marcelo
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
