On 11/04/2014 08:35 AM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > 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. I'd rather just remove CMA allocation from the iommu providers on x86. -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>