On Fri, Oct 25 2013 at 3:22pm -0400,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:30:24PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > If preresume fails it is worth logging an error given that a device is
> > left suspended due to the failure.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > This change was motivated by local preresume error logging that was
> > added to the cache target. Elevating this error logging to DM core
> > makes sense.
>
> But here I disagree: I think it makes more sense not to elevate this
> logging, but to leave the responsibility for it with the targets
> themselves.
>
> > + DMERR("%s: %s: preresume failed, error = %d",
> > + dm_device_name(t->md), ti->type->name, r);
>
> Elevated, you're only getting a single number displayed.
Elevated was over-stated, I'll revise the header. I was trying to say
that the target shouldn't need to worry about stating that the failure
happens to be in the preresume method on the target.
> If the targets retain the responsibility, then you should get a
> more-detailed error message such as:
>
> DMERR("aborting resume - crypt key is not set.");
>
> DMERR("Unable to resume snapshot source until "
> "handover completes.");
>
> DMERR("Unable to perform snapshot handover until "
> "source is suspended.");
>
> DMERR("could not resize cache metadata");
> DMERR("could not load cache mappings");
> DMERR("could not load origin discards");
>
> I think we should retain the requirement that each target must log
> a meaningful message whenever preresume fails.
Yeah, I agree. I just want DM core to make it clear that the target
failure resulted in preresume failing.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
