On 08/27/14 at 12:32am, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
> >This is printed by function get_kernel_version(), it will be used by
> >other makedumpfile main code flows too. This message is used to warn
> >users that users' using kernel may not be tested suffciently. I think
> >those tests are mainly taken by Atsushi. When he finished sufficient
> >tests on a new version of kernel, the LATEST_VERSION will be changed to
> >be a larger value. I am fine with this message, since it won't occur on
> >our distribution, anyway kernel for distribution are all tested. And if
> >LATEST_VERSION is older than our distribution kernel, maintainer may be
> >pushed to take tests and update this value. So don't worry about this
> >message.
> >
> >But I would like to change the message like below to clean up
> >misunderstanding if Atsushi doesn't object, this mostly occur when
> >people working on latest upstream kernel.
> >-------------------------------------------------
> >The kernel version is not supported.
> >The makedumpfile operation may not be successful.
> >--------------------------------------------------
>
> Good change, let's do it. --mem-usage doesn't create a dumpfile
> but the behavior still depend on the kernel version, this message
> is meaningful. Also, as Vivek said, the latter line can be
> changed based on the operating mode, but I don't think it's
> necessary.
OK, I would like to change the printing message for now. If necessary,
I prefer to post a independent cleanup patch for message printing.
>
> >>
> >This is also a public message printing, means if makedumpfile operation
> >is successful or not. Maybe I can add a check like below:
> >
> >@@ -9546,7 +9553,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > retcd = COMPLETED;
> > out:
> > MSG("\n");
> >- if (retcd == COMPLETED)
> >+ if ((retcd == COMPLETED) && (!info->flag_mem_usage))
> > MSG("makedumpfile Completed.\n");
> > else
> > MSG("makedumpfile Failed.\n");
>
> This code always show "makedumpfile Failed" for --mem-usage :-)
>
> Anyway,
>
> >Hi Atsushi,
> >
> >How do you think about this? And for the excluding progress indication
> >too, add a check that if it's mem-usage handling, not printing.
>
> I don't think we need to change the both messages, they indicate
> the actual progress and result even in the mem-usage mode.
OK, so just keep it in this patchset.
Thanks for suggestion.
>
