Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next] libie: log more info when virtchnl fails

[Li Li]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 9:08 AM Loktionov, Aleksandr
<aleksandr.loktionov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
> > Of Li Li via Intel-wired-lan
> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 5:16 AM
> > To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@xxxxxxxxx>; Kitszel,
> > Przemyslaw <przemyslaw.kitszel@xxxxxxxxx>; David S. Miller
> > <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet
> > <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; intel-wired-lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David
> > Decotigny <decot@xxxxxxxxxx>; Singhai, Anjali
> > <anjali.singhai@xxxxxxxxx>; Samudrala, Sridhar
> > <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx>; Brian Vazquez <brianvv@xxxxxxxxxx>; Li
> > Li <boolli@xxxxxxxxxx>; Tantilov, Emil S <emil.s.tantilov@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next] libie: log more info when
> > virtchnl fails
> >
> > Virtchnl failures can be hard to debug without logs. Logging the
> > details of virtchnl transactions can be useful for debugging virtchnl-
> > related issues.
> >
> > Tested: Built and booted on a test machine.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Li Li <boolli@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/libie/controlq.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/libie/controlq.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/libie/controlq.c
> > index ebc05355e39d..7eaa77413621 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/libie/controlq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/libie/controlq.c
> > @@ -762,6 +762,16 @@ libie_ctlq_xn_process_recv(struct
> > libie_ctlq_xn_recv_params *params,
> >       status = ctlq_msg->chnl_retval ? -EFAULT : 0;
> >
> >       xn = &xnm->ring[xn_index];
> > +
> > +     if (ctlq_msg->chnl_retval) {
> > +             dev_err_ratelimited(
> > +                     params->ctlq->dev,
> > +                     "Non-zero virtchnl ret val (msg op: %u, ret val:
> > %u, msg_cookie: %u, data_len: %u); xn op: %u, id: %u, cookie: %u\n",
> > +                     ctlq_msg->chnl_opcode, ctlq_msg->chnl_retval,
> > +                     msg_cookie, ctlq_msg->data_len, xn-
> > >virtchnl_opcode,
> > +                     xn->index, xn->cookie);
> > +     }
> > +
> >       if (ctlq_msg->chnl_opcode != xn->virtchnl_opcode ||
> >           msg_cookie != xn->cookie)
> >               return false;
> > @@ -1011,6 +1021,11 @@ int libie_ctlq_xn_send(struct
> > libie_ctlq_xn_send_params *params)
> >               params->recv_mem = xn->recv_mem;
> >               break;
> >       default:
> > +             dev_notice_ratelimited(
> > +                     params->ctlq->dev,
> > +                     "Transaction failed (op %u, xn state: %d, id: %u,
> > cookie: %u, size: %zu)\n",
> > +                     params->chnl_opcode, xn->state, xn->index, xn-
> > >cookie,
> > +                     xn->recv_mem.iov_len);
> For me dev_notice_ratelimited() level is low for a failure messages.
> Why not dev_warn_ratelimited() instead?

Good call. Switched to using  dev_warn_ratelimited() in the v2 patch.
Thanks for the suggestion!

>
> >               ret = -EBADMSG;
> >               break;
> >       }
> > --
> > 2.54.0.rc2.544.gc7ae2d5bb8-goog
>