[PATCH net-next v13 3/3] net: hisilicon: new hip04 ethernet driver

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 19 January 2015 19:11:11 Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> After hammering on the box a bit again, I'm in a situation where I get 
> lots of
> 
> [302398.232603] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302398.377309] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302398.395198] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302398.466118] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302398.659009] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302399.053389] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302399.122067] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302399.268192] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302399.286081] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302399.594201] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302399.683416] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> [302399.701307] hip04-ether e28b0000.ethernet eth0: rx drop
> 
> and I really am getting a lot of drops - I can't even ping the machine 
> anymore.
> 
> However, as it is there's a good chance the machine is simply 
> unreachable because it's busy writing to the UART, and even if not all 
> useful messages indicating anything have scrolled out. I really don't 
> think you should emit any message over and over again to the user. Once 
> or twice is enough.
>
> Please make sure to rate limit it.

I would argue that packet loss is not an error condition at all
and you should not print this at netdev_err() level. You could make
this a netdev_dbg(), or just make it silent because it's already
counted in the statistics.

	Arnd