Message-ID: <531F49F2.3030408@candelatech.com> (sfid-20140311_183833_154157_E1A1C5F2)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:37:54 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com>
CC: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@tieto.com>,
	linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: unify warning messages in mac.c
References: <20140303154327.1290.67278.stgit@potku.adurom.net> <CA+BoTQmQndikH5uPDwBpstp9KmcD3tmHSGP5NpEreYEOtRm0sw@mail.gmail.com> <8761nv44nd.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <87k3c1gf35.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <87k3c1gf35.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 03/11/2014 04:16 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Kalle Valo <kvalo@qca.qualcomm.com> writes:
> 
>>> I think we should agree on one of the two approaches:
>>>
>>> a) start with a verb:
>>>
>>> "failed to add peer %pM on vdev %i: %d"
>>> "failed to initialize dfs pattern detector"
>>> "timed out while waiting for scan completion"
>>>
>>> b) start with a noun:
>>>
>>> "peer %pM on vdev %i could not be added: %d"
>>> "dfs pattern detector could not initialize"
>>> "scan timed out"
>>>
>>> These are still mixed.
>>>
>>> We could probably also limit the set of verbs, e.g. replace "could
>>> not" with "failed to" as it's practically the same thing (assuming we
>>> pick (a)).
>>
>> That's true. I would vote for option (a).
> 
> I didn't get any comments about Michal's proposal. Can I conclude from
> this that (a) above is ok for everyone?


I like (a), but I would also suggest giving user a clue as to the
severity.  Something starting with 'failed' or 'warning' is pretty obvious.

A timeout is less so..ie, how much of a problem is the timeout?

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com