When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued:
hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs
hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61
While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of
hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest.
Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
---
arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644
--- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
+++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
@@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void)
{
int rc;
+ if (MACHINE_IS_KVM)
+ return -ENODATA;
+
hypfs_dbfs_init();
if (hypfs_diag_init()) {
--
2.35.3
Ping?
On 07.06.22 14:33, Juergen Gross wrote:
> When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued:
>
> hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs
> hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61
>
> While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of
> hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
> index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
> @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void)
> {
> int rc;
>
> + if (MACHINE_IS_KVM)
> + return -ENODATA;
> +
> hypfs_dbfs_init();
>
> if (hypfs_diag_init()) {
Am 20.06.22 um 08:03 schrieb Juergen Gross:
> Ping?
>
> On 07.06.22 14:33, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued:
>>
>> hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs
>> hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61
>>
>> While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of
>> hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>> index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>> @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void)
>> {
>> int rc;
>> + if (MACHINE_IS_KVM)
>> + return -ENODATA;
>> +
>> hypfs_dbfs_init();
>> if (hypfs_diag_init()) {
In case KVM implements hypfs this check would then be wrong.
Question to people on CC/TO.
Would it be an option to still check with KVM but avoid the error message.
So basically changing hypfs_diag_init and fail_dbfs_exit to check
for KVM on error?
Or is this worse?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:18:37AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am 20.06.22 um 08:03 schrieb Juergen Gross:
> > Ping?
> >
> > On 07.06.22 14:33, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued:
> > >
> > > hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs
> > > hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61
> > >
> > > While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of
> > > hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > ? arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++
> > > ? 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
> > > index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644
> > > --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
> > > +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
> > > @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void)
> > > ? {
> > > ????? int rc;
> > > +??? if (MACHINE_IS_KVM)
> > > +??????? return -ENODATA;
> > > +
> > > ????? hypfs_dbfs_init();
> > > ????? if (hypfs_diag_init()) {
>
> In case KVM implements hypfs this check would then be wrong.
> Question to people on CC/TO.
> Would it be an option to still check with KVM but avoid the error message.
> So basically changing hypfs_diag_init and fail_dbfs_exit to check
> for KVM on error?
> Or is this worse?
I'd say just move the pr_err("Initialization of hypfs failed with...")
one label above to fail_hypfs_diag_exit. Then we still get the message
that the hardware system doesn't support hypfs, which seems to be
wanted, and the error message only appears for an error.
Even though I personally dislike printing everything to the console
this seems to be what is/was preferred. So let's keep that.
On 20.06.22 11:19, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:18:37AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Am 20.06.22 um 08:03 schrieb Juergen Gross:
>>> Ping?
>>>
>>> On 07.06.22 14:33, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued:
>>>>
>>>> hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs
>>>> hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61
>>>>
>>>> While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of
>>>> hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>>>> index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>>>> @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void)
>>>> {
>>>> int rc;
>>>> + if (MACHINE_IS_KVM)
>>>> + return -ENODATA;
>>>> +
>>>> hypfs_dbfs_init();
>>>> if (hypfs_diag_init()) {
>>
>> In case KVM implements hypfs this check would then be wrong.
>> Question to people on CC/TO.
>> Would it be an option to still check with KVM but avoid the error message.
>> So basically changing hypfs_diag_init and fail_dbfs_exit to check
>> for KVM on error?
>> Or is this worse?
>
> I'd say just move the pr_err("Initialization of hypfs failed with...")
> one label above to fail_hypfs_diag_exit. Then we still get the message
> that the hardware system doesn't support hypfs, which seems to be
> wanted, and the error message only appears for an error.
>
> Even though I personally dislike printing everything to the console
> this seems to be what is/was preferred. So let's keep that.
Works for me.
Would you be fine with additionally:
@@ __init int hypfs_diag_init(void)
int rc;
if (diag204_probe()) {
- pr_err("The hardware system does not support hypfs\n");
+ pr_info("The hardware system does not support hypfs\n");
return -ENODATA;
}
As this not really an error.
Juergen
Am 20.06.22 um 11:25 schrieb Juergen Gross:
> On 20.06.22 11:19, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:18:37AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> Am 20.06.22 um 08:03 schrieb Juergen Gross:
>>>> Ping?
>>>>
>>>> On 07.06.22 14:33, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued:
>>>>>
>>>>> hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs
>>>>> hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61
>>>>>
>>>>> While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of
>>>>> hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>>>>> index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c
>>>>> @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> int rc;
>>>>> + if (MACHINE_IS_KVM)
>>>>> + return -ENODATA;
>>>>> +
>>>>> hypfs_dbfs_init();
>>>>> if (hypfs_diag_init()) {
>>>
>>> In case KVM implements hypfs this check would then be wrong.
>>> Question to people on CC/TO.
>>> Would it be an option to still check with KVM but avoid the error message.
>>> So basically changing hypfs_diag_init and fail_dbfs_exit to check
>>> for KVM on error?
>>> Or is this worse?
>>
>> I'd say just move the pr_err("Initialization of hypfs failed with...")
>> one label above to fail_hypfs_diag_exit. Then we still get the message
>> that the hardware system doesn't support hypfs, which seems to be
>> wanted, and the error message only appears for an error.
>>
>> Even though I personally dislike printing everything to the console
>> this seems to be what is/was preferred. So let's keep that.
>
> Works for me.
>
> Would you be fine with additionally:
>
> @@ __init int hypfs_diag_init(void)
> int rc;
>
> if (diag204_probe()) {
> - pr_err("The hardware system does not support hypfs\n");
> + pr_info("The hardware system does not support hypfs\n");
> return -ENODATA;
> }
>
> As this not really an error.
Yes, makes sense.