From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd: Lower severity of aborted journal from EMERG to CRIT Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20131121101945.GA23049@quack.suse.cz> References: <1384527412-23349-1-git-send-email-lkundrak@v3.sk> <20131118164533.GF3921@quack.suse.cz> <20131119102630.GB5107@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Kara , Lubomir Rintel , Andrew Morton , Theodore Ts'o , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131119102630.GB5107@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue 19-11-13 02:26:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:45:33PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > dead. If it was an important filesystem in your system, the whole system is > > unusable. In kernel, we don't know whether the filesystem was important or > > not. So KERN_EMERG isn't adequate in all the cases but KERN_CRIT is > > neither. What if we made that message print also device name (it would be > > more useful anyway in that case) and you could then filter out messages for > > unimportant devices in syslogd? > > What is important or unimportant? In todays world I don't think a fs > dying is nessecarily criticial. A root filesystem might be, but so > might be any devices that is a single point of failure required for > operation. Agreed. And that is a reason to keep messages KERN_EMERG or change them to KERN_CRIT? I can see arguments in both ways and so I don't feel a strong incentive to change what we have now... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR