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

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

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.

> 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.

> 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;
>  	}
>  
> 
>