Remi Locherer([email protected]) on 2020.01.22 06:49:53 +0100: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:56:00AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 03:58:58PM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:09:30PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 09:35:06AM +0100, Remi Locherer wrote: > > > > > > @@ -235,6 +233,7 @@ lsa_check(struct rde_nbr *nbr, struct ls > > > > > > case LSA_TYPE_NETWORK: > > > > > > if ((len % sizeof(u_int32_t)) || > > > > > > len < sizeof(lsa->hdr) + sizeof(u_int32_t)) { > > > > > > + log_warnx("lsa_check: bad LSA network packet"); > > > > > > > > > > please use __func__ > > > > > > > > > > > > > None use __func__ currently. > > > > > > > > > > Right, it's not often used in ospf6d. > > > > > > I think we should use it more in such cases. > > > > > > But you have my OK with or without that. > > > > > > > I think the log_warnx should use __func__ less and instead use better > > messages that an operator can understand without having to check the code. > > As a developer 'lsa_check: bad LSA network packet' sounds great since I > > can find the code but as an operator 'dropped LSA network packet with bad > > size from neighbor XY' would be more effective. I'm probably the source of > > most of those messages that's why I think they could be better :) > > But changing those can happen some other time. > > I agree with that point. But when the function name is used in a message > I prefer if __func__ is used.
Another consideration: if you have the same message in multiple functions, please use it so we know which one it was.
