These messages, combined with the backtrace they trigger, makes it seem
like a serious problem, though a quick search shows distros marking
it as a "won't fix" non-issue when the problem is reported by users.
The backtrace is overkill, and only really manages to show that if
you follow the code path, you can't really avoid it with bootargs
or configuration settings in the container.
Given that, lets tone it down a bit and get rid of the WARN severity,
and the associated backtrace, so people aren't needlessly alarmed.
Also, lets drop the split printk line, since they are grep unfriendly.
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c
index 9c271f42604a..fe8a3da5eb63 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c
@@ -526,8 +526,7 @@ nfsd4_legacy_tracking_init(struct net *net)
/* XXX: The legacy code won't work in a container */
if (net != &init_net) {
- WARN(1, KERN_ERR "NFSD: attempt to initialize legacy client "
- "tracking in a container!\n");
+ pr_warn("NFSD: attempt to initialize legacy client tracking in a container ignored.\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -1191,8 +1190,7 @@ nfsd4_umh_cltrack_init(struct net __attribute__((unused)) *net)
{
/* XXX: The usermode helper s not working in container yet. */
if (net != &init_net) {
- WARN(1, KERN_ERR "NFSD: attempt to initialize umh client "
- "tracking in a container!\n");
+ pr_warn("NFSD: attempt to initialize umh client tracking in a container ignored.\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
return nfsd4_umh_cltrack_upcall("init", NULL, NULL);
--
2.1.0
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
