On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:52:19AM +0200, Javier González wrote:
> > On 21 Sep 2017, at 13.26, Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This usually happens if we are developing with qemu and ll2pmode has
> > default value. Even in that case message seems wrong.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> > index 470ef04..c5c1337 100644
> > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> > @@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ static void *pblk_init(struct nvm_tgt_dev *dev, struct gendisk *tdisk,
> > int ret;
> >
> > if (dev->identity.dom & NVM_RSP_L2P) {
> > - pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table not supported. (%x)\n",
> > + pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table supported. (%x)\n",
> > dev->identity.dom);
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.5.0
>
> You're right. This is inherited from rrpc.
>
> Can we instead write "pblk: full host-side L2P table not supported"?
> People will not know about the hybrid device/host L2P as time goes by
> and it will just be confusing. I'm not even sure this will be part of
> the 2.0 spec, so it will probably go away with time...
>
Sure. I was confused the first time. This is better.
It would be great if this is done while picking up. I can repost as
well if need be.
Thanks,
