Re: [PATCH] Make some ext3 kernel messages useful by showing device

Kasper Sandberg
2008-06-09T13:39:12Z

On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 02:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:02:41 +0200 Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > Some of the ext3 warnings in super.c are not really as useful as they
> > can be, for instance the "EXT3-fs warning: maximal mount count reached,
> > running e2fsck is recommended" message, does not tell which device it
> > actually is.
>
> Seems sensible.
>
> > Below is patch(both inlined, and in attached form, since i dont trust my
> > mailer),
>
> That really tricks me. Because the resulting file applies nicely with
> `patch --dry-run' but doesn't apply with plain old `patch'. Inlined is
> preferred, attached is grumpily accepted, but please avoid duplicating
> the patch.

I do not know what happened, i did with diff -Naur. I attached because
of the fact that i _KNOW_ evolution is not to be trusted with inlined,
but i also know inlined is easier for review, even if it is not properly
accepted as input for patch.

>
> > to a patch which fixes that particular message, and a few more.
> > I could look at the rest if anyones interrested?
>
> We like to keep ext3 and ext4 in sync as much as poss, please.
Yes, i will do this soon, i have a few things to do first though.
>
> > Oh, and i dont really know if this is nessecary, but:
> > Signed-off-by: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>
>
> It is very much preferred, thanks.
>
> (patch retained for linux-ext4 review)
>
> >
> > --- super.c.orig 2008-06-08 20:49:26.153047364 +0200
> > +++ super.c 2008-06-08 20:45:20.812047463 +0200
> > @@ -1188,31 +1188,31 @@
> > int res = 0;
> >
> > if (le32_to_cpu(es->s_rev_level) > EXT3_MAX_SUPP_REV) {
> > - printk (KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs warning: revision level too high, "
> > - "forcing read-only mode\n");
> > + printk (KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs on %s warning: revision level too high, "
> > + "forcing read-only mode\n", sb->s_id);
> > res = MS_RDONLY;
> > }
> > if (read_only)
> > return res;
> > if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & EXT3_VALID_FS))
> > - printk (KERN_WARNING "EXT3-fs warning: mounting unchecked fs, "
> > - "running e2fsck is recommended\n");
> > + printk (KERN_WARNING "EXT3-fs on %s warning: mounting unchecked fs, "
> > + "running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
> > else if ((sbi->s_mount_state & EXT3_ERROR_FS))
> > printk (KERN_WARNING
> > - "EXT3-fs warning: mounting fs with errors, "
> > - "running e2fsck is recommended\n");
> > + "EXT3-fs on %s warning: mounting fs with errors, "
> > + "running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
> > else if ((__s16) le16_to_cpu(es->s_max_mnt_count) >= 0 &&
> > le16_to_cpu(es->s_mnt_count) >=
> > (unsigned short) (__s16) le16_to_cpu(es->s_max_mnt_count))
> > printk (KERN_WARNING
> > - "EXT3-fs warning: maximal mount count reached, "
> > - "running e2fsck is recommended\n");
> > + "EXT3-fs on %s warning: maximal mount count reached, "
> > + "running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
> > else if (le32_to_cpu(es->s_checkinterval) &&
> > (le32_to_cpu(es->s_lastcheck) +
> > le32_to_cpu(es->s_checkinterval) <= get_seconds()))
> > printk (KERN_WARNING
> > - "EXT3-fs warning: checktime reached, "
> > - "running e2fsck is recommended\n");
> > + "EXT3-fs on %s warning: checktime reached, "
> > + "running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
> > #if 0
> > /* @@@ We _will_ want to clear the valid bit if we find
> > inconsistencies, to force a fsck at reboot. But for
> > @@ -1339,8 +1339,8 @@
> > }
> >
> > if (bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev)) {
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs: write access "
> > - "unavailable, skipping orphan cleanup.\n");
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs on %s: write access "
> > + "unavailable, skipping orphan cleanup.\n", sb->s_id);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/