On 20.06.22 11:19, Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:18:37AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:Am 20.06.22 um 08:03 schrieb Juergen Gross:Ping? On 07.06.22 14:33, Juergen Gross wrote:When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued: hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61 While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> --- arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644 --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void) { int rc; + if (MACHINE_IS_KVM) + return -ENODATA; + hypfs_dbfs_init(); if (hypfs_diag_init()) {In case KVM implements hypfs this check would then be wrong. Question to people on CC/TO. Would it be an option to still check with KVM but avoid the error message. So basically changing hypfs_diag_init and fail_dbfs_exit to check for KVM on error? Or is this worse?I'd say just move the pr_err("Initialization of hypfs failed with...") one label above to fail_hypfs_diag_exit. Then we still get the message that the hardware system doesn't support hypfs, which seems to be wanted, and the error message only appears for an error. Even though I personally dislike printing everything to the console this seems to be what is/was preferred. So let's keep that.
Works for me. Would you be fine with additionally: @@ __init int hypfs_diag_init(void) int rc; if (diag204_probe()) { - pr_err("The hardware system does not support hypfs\n"); + pr_info("The hardware system does not support hypfs\n"); return -ENODATA; } As this not really an error. Juergen
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature