Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: decrease log level for successful API

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

02/08/2018 16:52, Kevin Traynor:
> On 08/02/2018 03:41 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> > On 02.08.2018 17:09, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> >> On 08/02/2018 02:52 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>> On 02.08.2018 16:35, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> >>>> On 08/02/2018 01:59 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>>>> On 02.08.2018 15:33, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> >>>>>> @@ -1319,5 +1319,5 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> >>>>>>           if (dev->data->dev_started == 0) {
> >>>>>> -        RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR,
> >>>>>> +        RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(DEBUG,
> >>>>>>                 "Device with port_id=%"PRIu16" already stopped\n",
> >>>>>>                 port_id);
> >>>>> I would suggest to use WARNING here. Yes, it is not an error since
> >>>>> nothing bad has
> >>>>> happened and we handle duplicate stop and duplicate start,
> >>>>> but I think it is bad that (buggy?) application does it. Making it
> >>>>> debug
> >>>>> we simply
> >>>>> hide it too much.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think an application following the documented API is not bad or
> >>>> buggy.
> >>> I've failed to find the place were it is documented that device/queue
> >>> may be stopped/started twice. Could you point out?
> >>> Yes, return value 0 means success, but it is a separate thing.
> >>>
> >> I was commenting directly on the API and it's documentation e.g. below
> >> for dev start. I'm not aware of other documentation specifying how it
> >> can/cannot be called.
> > 
> > I would not say so. "0: Success. Ethernet device started" means that
> > function managed to do the job and finally the device is started.
> > 
> > Never-mind it is not that important and already paid to much attention.
> > I've included in CC other ethdev maintainers (who should be there from
> > the very beginning). I don't mind if it is acked by other ethdev maintainer
> > and applied. It is definitely not an error as it is now. Thanks.
> > 
> 
> Sure, sounds good - I'm glad we agree on something :-) I'll leave it for
> a day and can re-spin tomorrow.

I would like to give an opinion, but unfortunately it's hard to decide.
For sure, it should not be a WARNING level (used for non-fatal errors).
What else do we have? NOTICE, INFO and DEBUG.
I think it can be INFO.