On Tue, Nov 04 2014, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/04/2014 12:43 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:57:53PM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: >>> Having test_pages_isolated failure message as a warning confuses >>> users into thinking that it is more serious than it really is. In >>> reality, if called via CMA, allocation will be retried so a single >>> test_pages_isolated failure does not prevent allocation from >>> succeeding. >>> >>> Demote the warning message to an info message and reformat it such >>> that the text “failed” does not appear and instead a less worrying >>> “PFNS busy” is used. >> >> What do you expect from this message? Please describe it so that we can >> review below message helps your goal. > > I expect this message to not show up in logs unless there is a real problem. So frankly I don't care. Feel free to send a patch removing the message all together. I'll be happy to ack it. -- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +--<mpn@xxxxxxxxxx>--<xmpp:mina86@xxxxxxxxxx>--ooO--(_)--Ooo-- -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href