Am 20.06.22 um 11:25 schrieb Juergen Gross:
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.
Yes, makes sense.
