On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 21:06 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-11-18 at 15:43 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > It's fairly useless to complain about using an obsolete feature without
> > telling the user which process used it. My Fedora desktop randomly drops
> > this message, but I would really need this patch to figure out what
> > triggers is.
> >
>
> Interesting. The only program I know of that tried to use these was
> samba, but we patched that out a few years ago (about the time this
> patch went in). Are you running an older version of samba?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/locks.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > index 607f94a0e789..2e45232dbeb1 100644
> > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > @@ -2096,7 +2096,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd)
> > * throw a warning to let people know that they don't actually work.
> > */
> > if (cmd & LOCK_MAND) {
> > - pr_warn_once("Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n");
> > + pr_warn_once("%s: Attempt to set a LOCK_MAND lock via flock(2). This support has been removed and the request ignored.\n", current->comm);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> Looks reasonable. Would it help to print the pid or tgid as well?
Merged into my locks-next branch, along with a small change to print
current->pid in addition to current->comm. This should make v6.2.
Thanks!
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
