[v2,03/13] scsi: fnic: Add and improve log messages
Commit Message
Add link related log messages in fnic_fcs.c,
Improve log message in fnic_fcs.c,
Add log message in vnic_dev.c.
Reviewed-by: Sesidhar Baddela <sebaddel@cisco.com>
Reviewed-by: Arulprabhu Ponnusamy <arulponn@cisco.com>
Signed-off-by: Karan Tilak Kumar <kartilak@cisco.com>
---
drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
drivers/scsi/fnic/vnic_dev.c | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Comments
On 10/27/23 20:02, Karan Tilak Kumar wrote:
> Add link related log messages in fnic_fcs.c,
> Improve log message in fnic_fcs.c,
> Add log message in vnic_dev.c.
>
> Reviewed-by: Sesidhar Baddela <sebaddel@cisco.com>
> Reviewed-by: Arulprabhu Ponnusamy <arulponn@cisco.com>
> Signed-off-by: Karan Tilak Kumar <kartilak@cisco.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> drivers/scsi/fnic/vnic_dev.c | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
> index 55632c67a8f2..203ffec625a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
> @@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
> new_port_speed);
> if (old_port_speed != new_port_speed)
> FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
> - "Current vnic speed set to : %llu\n",
> - new_port_speed);
> + "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: Current vnic speed set to: %llu\n",
> + fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__, new_port_speed);
>
Please update FNIC_MAIN_DBG() to use the 'fnic' structure as an
argument, then you don't have to prefix all messages with 'fnic<%d>'.
Cheers,
Hannes
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 12:28 AM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On 10/27/23 20:02, Karan Tilak Kumar wrote:
> > Add link related log messages in fnic_fcs.c, Improve log message in
> > fnic_fcs.c, Add log message in vnic_dev.c.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Sesidhar Baddela <sebaddel@cisco.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Arulprabhu Ponnusamy <arulponn@cisco.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Karan Tilak Kumar <kartilak@cisco.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > drivers/scsi/fnic/vnic_dev.c | 4 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
> > b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c index 55632c67a8f2..203ffec625a4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
> > @@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
> > new_port_speed);
> > if (old_port_speed != new_port_speed)
> > FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
> > - "Current vnic speed set to : %llu\n",
> > - new_port_speed);
> > + "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: Current vnic speed set to: %llu\n",
> > + fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__, new_port_speed);
> >
> Please update FNIC_MAIN_DBG() to use the 'fnic' structure as an argument, then you don't have to prefix all messages with 'fnic<%d>'.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes
Thanks for the review comments, Hannes. I'll make suitable changes in v3.
Please advise whether I'll need to supersede v2 with a "git send-email --in-reply-to" so that your "Reviewed-by" tag for other patches gets preserved.
I'm not exactly sure how the process works. The goal is to reduce the number of re-reviews of patches, if possible.
Any pointers with respect to this will help.
Regards,
Karan
On 11/6/23 20:55, Karan Tilak Kumar (kartilak) wrote:
> On Thursday, November 2, 2023 12:28 AM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/27/23 20:02, Karan Tilak Kumar wrote:
>>> Add link related log messages in fnic_fcs.c, Improve log message in
>>> fnic_fcs.c, Add log message in vnic_dev.c.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Sesidhar Baddela <sebaddel@cisco.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Arulprabhu Ponnusamy <arulponn@cisco.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Karan Tilak Kumar <kartilak@cisco.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>> drivers/scsi/fnic/vnic_dev.c | 4 ++++
>>> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
>>> b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c index 55632c67a8f2..203ffec625a4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_fcs.c
>>> @@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
>>> new_port_speed);
>>> if (old_port_speed != new_port_speed)
>>> FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
>>> - "Current vnic speed set to : %llu\n",
>>> - new_port_speed);
>>> + "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: Current vnic speed set to: %llu\n",
>>> + fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__, new_port_speed);
>>>
>> Please update FNIC_MAIN_DBG() to use the 'fnic' structure as an argument, then you don't have to prefix all messages with 'fnic<%d>'.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Hannes
>
> Thanks for the review comments, Hannes. I'll make suitable changes in v3.
> Please advise whether I'll need to supersede v2 with a "git send-email --in-reply-to" so that your
> "Reviewed-by" tag for other patches gets preserved.
> I'm not exactly sure how the process works. The goal is to reduce the number of re-reviews of patches, if possible.
> Any pointers with respect to this will help.
>
Please add the 'Reviewed-by' tags for the next submission; that will
indicated to reviewers which of these patches already have been reviewed
and which need further attention.
Hint: there is the 'b4' tool, which will scrape the patches from the
mailing list _and_ add the 'Reviewed-by' tags. Maybe give it a go.
Cheers,
Hannes
On Monday, November 6, 2023 11:21 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
> > Thanks for the review comments, Hannes. I'll make suitable changes in v3.
> > Please advise whether I'll need to supersede v2 with a "git send-email
> > --in-reply-to" so that your "Reviewed-by" tag for other patches gets preserved.
> > I'm not exactly sure how the process works. The goal is to reduce the number of re-reviews of patches, if possible.
> > Any pointers with respect to this will help.
> >
> Please add the 'Reviewed-by' tags for the next submission; that will indicated to reviewers which of these patches already have been reviewed and which need further attention.
> Hint: there is the 'b4' tool, which will scrape the patches from the mailing list _and_ add the 'Reviewed-by' tags. Maybe give it a go.
>
Thanks for this suggestion.
I'm using this tool and preparing patches for v3.
Regards,
Karan
@@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
new_port_speed);
if (old_port_speed != new_port_speed)
FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
- "Current vnic speed set to : %llu\n",
- new_port_speed);
+ "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: Current vnic speed set to: %llu\n",
+ fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__, new_port_speed);
switch (vnic_dev_port_speed(fnic->vdev)) {
case DCEM_PORTSPEED_10G:
@@ -102,6 +102,9 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
fnic_fc_trace_set_data(fnic->lport->host->host_no,
FNIC_FC_LE, "Link Status: DOWN->DOWN",
strlen("Link Status: DOWN->DOWN"));
+ FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
+ "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: down->down\n",
+ fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__);
} else {
if (old_link_down_cnt != fnic->link_down_cnt) {
/* UP -> DOWN -> UP */
@@ -128,8 +131,9 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
fnic_fcoe_send_vlan_req(fnic);
return;
}
- FNIC_FCS_DBG(KERN_DEBUG, fnic->lport->host,
- "link up\n");
+ FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
+ "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: up->down->up: Link up\n",
+ fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__);
fcoe_ctlr_link_up(&fnic->ctlr);
} else {
/* UP -> UP */
@@ -138,6 +142,9 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
fnic->lport->host->host_no, FNIC_FC_LE,
"Link Status: UP_UP",
strlen("Link Status: UP_UP"));
+ FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
+ "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: up->up\n",
+ fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__);
}
}
} else if (fnic->link_status) {
@@ -153,7 +160,9 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
return;
}
- FNIC_FCS_DBG(KERN_DEBUG, fnic->lport->host, "link up\n");
+ FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
+ "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: down->up: Link up\n",
+ fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__);
fnic_fc_trace_set_data(fnic->lport->host->host_no, FNIC_FC_LE,
"Link Status: DOWN_UP", strlen("Link Status: DOWN_UP"));
fcoe_ctlr_link_up(&fnic->ctlr);
@@ -161,7 +170,9 @@ void fnic_handle_link(struct work_struct *work)
/* UP -> DOWN */
fnic->lport->host_stats.link_failure_count++;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fnic->fnic_lock, flags);
- FNIC_FCS_DBG(KERN_DEBUG, fnic->lport->host, "link down\n");
+ FNIC_MAIN_DBG(KERN_INFO, fnic->lport->host,
+ "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: up->down: Link down\n",
+ fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__);
fnic_fc_trace_set_data(
fnic->lport->host->host_no, FNIC_FC_LE,
"Link Status: UP_DOWN",
@@ -763,8 +774,9 @@ void fnic_set_port_id(struct fc_lport *lport, u32 port_id, struct fc_frame *fp)
u8 *mac;
int ret;
- FNIC_FCS_DBG(KERN_DEBUG, lport->host, "set port_id %x fp %p\n",
- port_id, fp);
+ FNIC_FCS_DBG(KERN_DEBUG, lport->host,
+ "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: set port_id 0x%x fp 0x%p\n",
+ fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__, port_id, fp);
/*
* If we're clearing the FC_ID, change to use the ctl_src_addr.
@@ -790,10 +802,10 @@ void fnic_set_port_id(struct fc_lport *lport, u32 port_id, struct fc_frame *fp)
if (fnic->state == FNIC_IN_ETH_MODE || fnic->state == FNIC_IN_FC_MODE)
fnic->state = FNIC_IN_ETH_TRANS_FC_MODE;
else {
- FNIC_FCS_DBG(KERN_DEBUG, fnic->lport->host,
- "Unexpected fnic state %s while"
- " processing flogi resp\n",
- fnic_state_to_str(fnic->state));
+ FNIC_FCS_DBG(KERN_ERR, fnic->lport->host,
+ "fnic<%d>: %s: %d: Unexpected fnic state: %s processing FLOGI response",
+ fnic->fnic_num, __func__, __LINE__,
+ fnic_state_to_str(fnic->state));
spin_unlock_irq(&fnic->fnic_lock);
return;
}
@@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ static int vnic_dev_discover_res(struct vnic_dev *vdev,
vdev->res[type].vaddr = (char __iomem *)bar->vaddr + bar_offset;
}
+ pr_info("res_type_wq: %d res_type_rq: %d res_type_cq: %d res_type_intr_ctrl: %d\n",
+ vdev->res[RES_TYPE_WQ].count, vdev->res[RES_TYPE_RQ].count,
+ vdev->res[RES_TYPE_CQ].count, vdev->res[RES_TYPE_INTR_CTRL].count);
+
return 0;
}