On 2020/9/3 07:05, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-09-03 at 00:40 +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> On 2020/9/3 00:04, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> 5.9 commit 231609785cbfb ("dax: print error message by pr_info() in
>>> __generic_fsdax_supported()") switched from pr_debug() to pr_info().
>>>
>>> The justification in the commit header is really inadequate. If there
>>> is a problem that you need to drill in on, repeat the testing after
>>> enabling the dynamic debugging.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, now all DM devices that aren't layered on DAX capable devices
>>> spew really confusing noise to users when they simply activate their
>>> non-DAX DM devices:
>>>
>>> [66567.129798] dm-6: error: dax access failed (-5)
>>> [66567.134400] dm-6: error: dax access failed (-5)
>>> [66567.139152] dm-6: error: dax access failed (-5)
>>> [66567.314546] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.319380] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.324254] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.479025] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.483713] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.488722] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.494061] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.498823] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.503693] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>>
>>> commit 231609785cbfb must be reverted.
>>>
>>> Please advise, thanks.
>>
>> Adrian Huang from Lenovo posted a patch, which titled: dax: do not print
>> error message for non-persistent memory block device
>>
>> It fixes the issue, but no response for now. Maybe we should take this fix.
>>
>
> Mike, Coly,
>
> I applied Adrians patch, and submitted it - it is already in v5.9-rc3 -
> c2affe920b0e dax: do not print error message for non-persistent memory block device
>
Hi Verma,
Thank you for taking it into mainline :-)
Coly Li
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
