This usually happens if we are developing with qemu and ll2pmode has
default value. Even in that case message seems wrong.
Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
---
drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
index 470ef04..c5c1337 100644
--- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
+++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
@@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ static void *pblk_init(struct nvm_tgt_dev *dev, struct gendisk *tdisk,
int ret;
if (dev->identity.dom & NVM_RSP_L2P) {
- pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table not supported. (%x)\n",
+ pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table supported. (%x)\n",
dev->identity.dom);
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
--
2.5.0
> On 21 Sep 2017, at 13.26, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This usually happens if we are developing with qemu and ll2pmode has
> default value. Even in that case message seems wrong.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> index 470ef04..c5c1337 100644
> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> @@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ static void *pblk_init(struct nvm_tgt_dev *dev, struct gendisk *tdisk,
> int ret;
>
> if (dev->identity.dom & NVM_RSP_L2P) {
> - pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table not supported. (%x)\n",
> + pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table supported. (%x)\n",
> dev->identity.dom);
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> }
> --
> 2.5.0
You're right. This is inherited from rrpc.
Can we instead write "pblk: full host-side L2P table not supported"?
People will not know about the hybrid device/host L2P as time goes by
and it will just be confusing. I'm not even sure this will be part of
the 2.0 spec, so it will probably go away with time...
Javier
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:52:19AM +0200, Javier Gonz?lez wrote:
> > On 21 Sep 2017, at 13.26, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > This usually happens if we are developing with qemu and ll2pmode has
> > default value. Even in that case message seems wrong.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> > index 470ef04..c5c1337 100644
> > --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> > +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
> > @@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ static void *pblk_init(struct nvm_tgt_dev *dev, struct gendisk *tdisk,
> > int ret;
> >
> > if (dev->identity.dom & NVM_RSP_L2P) {
> > - pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table not supported. (%x)\n",
> > + pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table supported. (%x)\n",
> > dev->identity.dom);
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.5.0
>
> You're right. This is inherited from rrpc.
>
> Can we instead write "pblk: full host-side L2P table not supported"?
> People will not know about the hybrid device/host L2P as time goes by
> and it will just be confusing. I'm not even sure this will be part of
> the 2.0 spec, so it will probably go away with time...
>
Sure. I was confused the first time. This is better.
It would be great if this is done while picking up. I can repost as
well if need be.
Thanks,
Sure.
Matias: Can you fix this when picking it up?
Javier
> On 22 Sep 2017, at 11.44, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:52:19AM +0200, Javier González wrote:
>>> On 21 Sep 2017, at 13.26, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> This usually happens if we are developing with qemu and ll2pmode has
>>> default value. Even in that case message seems wrong.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>>> index 470ef04..c5c1337 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>>> @@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ static void *pblk_init(struct nvm_tgt_dev *dev, struct gendisk *tdisk,
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> if (dev->identity.dom & NVM_RSP_L2P) {
>>> - pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table not supported. (%x)\n",
>>> + pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table supported. (%x)\n",
>>> dev->identity.dom);
>>> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>> }
>>> --
>>> 2.5.0
>>
>> You're right. This is inherited from rrpc.
>>
>> Can we instead write "pblk: full host-side L2P table not supported"?
>> People will not know about the hybrid device/host L2P as time goes by
>> and it will just be confusing. I'm not even sure this will be part of
>> the 2.0 spec, so it will probably go away with time...
>
> Sure. I was confused the first time. This is better.
>
> It would be great if this is done while picking up. I can repost as
> well if need be.
>
> Thanks,
On 09/22/2017 10:52 AM, Javier Gonz?lez wrote:
>> On 21 Sep 2017, at 13.26, Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> This usually happens if we are developing with qemu and ll2pmode has
>> default value. Even in that case message seems wrong.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>> index 470ef04..c5c1337 100644
>> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/pblk-init.c
>> @@ -913,7 +913,7 @@ static void *pblk_init(struct nvm_tgt_dev *dev, struct gendisk *tdisk,
>> int ret;
>>
>> if (dev->identity.dom & NVM_RSP_L2P) {
>> - pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table not supported. (%x)\n",
>> + pr_err("pblk: device-side L2P table supported. (%x)\n",
>> dev->identity.dom);
>> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> }
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>
> You're right. This is inherited from rrpc.
>
> Can we instead write "pblk: full host-side L2P table not supported"?
> People will not know about the hybrid device/host L2P as time goes by
> and it will just be confusing. I'm not even sure this will be part of
> the 2.0 spec, so it will probably go away with time...
>
> Javier
>
Thanks, I picked it up.