Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:18:56 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>
Cc: Matthias May <matthias.may@neratec.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@savoirfairelinux.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jason Cobham <jcobham@questertangent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: debug ATU Age Time
Message-ID: <20170314141856.GG14183@lunn.ch>
References: <20170313192043.12478-1-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>
 <20170313223932.GC14183@lunn.ch>
 <b7d0e92f-45cb-929d-a724-2a582621f8e1@gmail.com>
 <20170313225845.GE14183@lunn.ch>
 <535be006-e384-aca3-ee8b-4ed36b66b97a@neratec.com>
 <20170314120539.GT15842@lunn.ch>
 <87inncj71i.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87inncj71i.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1267
Lines: 31

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 09:56:41AM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> writes:
> 
> >> The never ever seeing R/W failure on MDIO bus is not exactly accurate.
> >> We had with art (atheros calibration tool) the problem that interrupts
> >> were being disabled which lead to MDIO operations running into
> >> timout/failing.
> >
> > Yes, i've seen similar with power management bugs for the MDIO
> > driver. But you get a cascade of failures, lots of warnings and error
> > prints, it is clear something bad has happened, and the switch is in
> > an inconsistent state. So having one more debug print which is also
> > inconsistent does no really harm.
> >
> > Anyway, this whole conversation has taken more effort than just making
> > this simple change to remove a few lines of code. So lets drop it and
> > move on.
> 
> I don't understand nor agree with the fact that sometimes it's OK to not
> check for errors, based on one developer assumptions. Not checking
> return code is wrong and very likely error-prone.

Please go back and look what i said. I did check the error code, in
that it gets returned to the caller. I just don't check it before
printing the debug.

But as i said, lets drop this whole topic.

    Andrew