On 04/13/2015 12:05 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 06:46:15PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> Hi Christoph, Ingo >> >> It is important in the lab for postmortem analysis to know if >> pmem driver loaded and/or unloaded. And the return code from this >> operation. >> >> I submit two versions [A] more chatty and version [B]. Both give me >> the info I need. >> >> I like [B] because [A] prints more lines, and also the driver might not >> load at the end and we would still not see it from [A]'s prints. >> >> But it does not matter that much just take any one you guys like >> better. >> >> Here are the commit logs: >> --- >> [PATCH 1A] pmem: Add prints at pmem_probe/remove >> >> Add small prints at creation/remove of pmem devices. >> So we can see in dmesg logs when users loaded/unloaded >> the pmem driver and what devices were created. >> >> The prints will look like this: >> Printed by e820 on load: >> [ +0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x000000015fffffff] persistent (type 12) >> [ +0.000000] user: [mem 0x0000000160000000-0x00000001dfffffff] persistent (type 12) >> ... >> Printed by modprobe pmem: >> [ +0.003065] pmem pmem.0.auto: probe [0x0000000100000000:0x60000000] >> [ +0.001816] pmem pmem.1.auto: probe [0x0000000160000000:0x80000000] >> ... >> Printed by modprobe -r pmem: >> [ +16.299145] pmem pmem.1.auto: remove >> [ +0.011155] pmem pmem.0.auto: remove >> >> Signed-off-by: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Don't polute the kernel logs with "chatty" things like this, Why do you say this is chatty. With [B] This is a single line of print on modprobe. With [A] it is a print per device (Is why I like [B]) Compare to all the other block-devices in the system, say scsi, that print bunch of info for each device, this is very very minimalistic. > just > trigger off of the block device uevent if you really want to know if the > block device is still around or not. > Again I do not need this for run time. At run time I have two tons of ways to check and see. BTW a uevent is already triggered for insertion as part of regular block core operation. I need this at dmesg for when analyzing users logs, say when a crash happens. I need to see what/when drivers were loaded/unloaded. It is common practice in dmseg for block devices to leave foot prints. Sigh, do you not believe that this single line in dmseg makes my life much easier? > thanks, > greg k-h Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
