On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:38 PM Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/12/2019 11:30 PM, Nigel Croxon wrote:
> > Often limits can be changed by admin. When discussing such things
> > it helps if you can provide "self-sustained" facts. Also
> > sometimes the admin thinks he changed a limit, but it did not
> > take effect for some reason or he changed the wrong thing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nigel Croxon <ncroxon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/md/raid5.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > index 522398f61eea..e2b58b58018b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > @@ -2566,8 +2566,8 @@ static void raid5_end_read_request(struct bio * bi, int error)
> > bdn);
> > } else if (atomic_read(&rdev->read_errors)
> > > conf->max_nr_stripes)
> > - pr_warn("md/raid:%s: Too many read errors, failing device %s.\n",
> > - mdname(conf->mddev), bdn);
> > + pr_warn("md/raid:%s: Too many read errors (%d), failing device %s.\n",
> > + mdname(conf->mddev), conf->max_nr_stripes, bdn);
> > else
> > retry = 1;
> > if (set_bad && test_bit(In_sync, &rdev->flags)
>
> Hi Nigel
>
> Is it better to print rdev->read_errors too? So it can know the error
> numbers and the max nr stripes
I think rdev->read_errors is more useful here.
Hi Neil,
I have a question for this case: this patch changes an existing pr_warn() line,
which in theory, may break user scripts that grep for this line from dmesg.
How much do we care about these scripts?
Thanks,
Song
