[PATCH] ethdev: Reject conflicting TX offloads configuration

[Morten Brørup]

> From: Ivan Malov [mailto:ivan.malov at arknetworks.am]
> Sent: Saturday, 2 August 2025 23.34
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2025, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 09:07:31 +0000
> > Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG_LINE(DEBUG,
> >> +			"Ethdev port_id=%d tx_queue_id=%d, Tx offload %s
> potential conflict with per-port Tx offload %s, "
> >> +			"runtime support depends on the driver",
> >
> > Shorten the message, and get it on one line.
> > When a message is so long it won't fit on one line, it is too verbose.
> 
> I am not an expert in naming, but on the premise that 'ethdev' is
> already
> printed by 'RTE_ETHDEV_LOG_LINE', perhaps consider this variant:
> 
> "id=%d txq=%d offload clash %s vs dev %s: PMD to decide"
> 
> Thank you.

Ivan's suggestion is good, but this file has plenty of long (and even multi-line) log messages, e.g. [1]:

	if ((local_conf.offloads & dev_info.tx_queue_offload_capa) !=
	     local_conf.offloads) {
		RTE_ETHDEV_LOG_LINE(ERR,
			"Ethdev port_id=%d tx_queue_id=%d, new added offloads 0x%"PRIx64" must be "
			"within per-queue offload capabilities 0x%"PRIx64" in %s()",
			port_id, tx_queue_id, local_conf.offloads,
			dev_info.tx_queue_offload_capa,
			__func__);
		return -EINVAL;
	}

[1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/dpdk/v25.07/source/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c#L2703

Which do you prefer:
a) Follow the local coding style for log messages, or
b) Follow our general coding style, and log as Ivan suggested?