| Message ID | 20170411164128.8401-3-martin@omnibond.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:41:27PM -0400, Martin Brandenburg wrote: > From: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> > > commit 05973c2efb40122f2a9ecde2d065f7ea5068d024 upstream. > > This patch is simlar to one Dan Carpenter sent me, cleans > up some return codes and whitespace errors. There was one > place where he thought inserting an error message into > the ring buffer might be too chatty, I hope I convinced him > othewise. As a consolation <g> I changed a truly chatty > error message in another location into a debug message, > system-admins had already yelled at me about that one... > > Signed-off-by: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> > > I have removed the return code and whitespace fixes as they do not cause > a real bug. I keep the removal of an error message. This error shows > up when a process dies before the OrangeFS userspace client responds. > This happens all the time on production systems and fills up the ring > buffer. No, please keep patches identical to what is in Linus's tree. That way you don't mess something up, and any future patches over the next 2+ years the kernel tree will be around apply cleanly. Almost every single time we "modify" a patch from what is in Linus's tree it is broken. I've taken the original patch here for 4.9 and 4.10 stable trees. thanks, greg k-h
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:41:27PM -0400, Martin Brandenburg wrote: > > From: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> > > > > commit 05973c2efb40122f2a9ecde2d065f7ea5068d024 upstream. > > > > This patch is simlar to one Dan Carpenter sent me, cleans > > up some return codes and whitespace errors. There was one > > place where he thought inserting an error message into > > the ring buffer might be too chatty, I hope I convinced him > > othewise. As a consolation <g> I changed a truly chatty > > error message in another location into a debug message, > > system-admins had already yelled at me about that one... > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> > > > > I have removed the return code and whitespace fixes as they do not cause > > a real bug. I keep the removal of an error message. This error shows > > up when a process dies before the OrangeFS userspace client responds. > > This happens all the time on production systems and fills up the ring > > buffer. > > No, please keep patches identical to what is in Linus's tree. That way > you don't mess something up, and any future patches over the next 2+ > years the kernel tree will be around apply cleanly. > > Almost every single time we "modify" a patch from what is in Linus's > tree it is broken. > > I've taken the original patch here for 4.9 and 4.10 stable trees. I based that on this line in stable-kernel-rules.rst - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, whitespace cleanups, etc). but I do see your point. Does that just mean pure trivial patches are inappropriate, but that if one or two trivial changes comes part and parcel with a more significant patch it should be kept? (Honestly what I removed are slightly more than trivial whitespace, though I wouldn't have sent them on their own if they didn't come with the logging change.) Martin > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:27:25AM -0400, Martin Brandenburg wrote: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:41:27PM -0400, Martin Brandenburg wrote: > > > From: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> > > > > > > commit 05973c2efb40122f2a9ecde2d065f7ea5068d024 upstream. > > > > > > This patch is simlar to one Dan Carpenter sent me, cleans > > > up some return codes and whitespace errors. There was one > > > place where he thought inserting an error message into > > > the ring buffer might be too chatty, I hope I convinced him > > > othewise. As a consolation <g> I changed a truly chatty > > > error message in another location into a debug message, > > > system-admins had already yelled at me about that one... > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> > > > > > > I have removed the return code and whitespace fixes as they do not cause > > > a real bug. I keep the removal of an error message. This error shows > > > up when a process dies before the OrangeFS userspace client responds. > > > This happens all the time on production systems and fills up the ring > > > buffer. > > > > No, please keep patches identical to what is in Linus's tree. That way > > you don't mess something up, and any future patches over the next 2+ > > years the kernel tree will be around apply cleanly. > > > > Almost every single time we "modify" a patch from what is in Linus's > > tree it is broken. > > > > I've taken the original patch here for 4.9 and 4.10 stable trees. > > I based that on this line in stable-kernel-rules.rst > > - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, > whitespace cleanups, etc). > > but I do see your point. Does that just mean pure trivial patches are > inappropriate, but that if one or two trivial changes comes part and > parcel with a more significant patch it should be kept? Yes. You shouldn't be taking patches that do more than one thing in a single patch anyway :) thanks, greg k-h
diff --git a/fs/orangefs/devorangefs-req.c b/fs/orangefs/devorangefs-req.c index 516ffb4dc9a0..f419dd999581 100644 --- a/fs/orangefs/devorangefs-req.c +++ b/fs/orangefs/devorangefs-req.c @@ -402,8 +402,9 @@ static ssize_t orangefs_devreq_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, /* remove the op from the in progress hash table */ op = orangefs_devreq_remove_op(head.tag); if (!op) { - gossip_err("WARNING: No one's waiting for tag %llu\n", - llu(head.tag)); + gossip_debug(GOSSIP_DEV_DEBUG, + "%s: No one's waiting for tag %llu\n", + __func__, llu(head.tag)); return ret; }