Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752010AbdIVJoV (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:44:21 -0400 Received: from mx2.mpynet.fi ([82.197.21.85]:20191 "EHLO mx2.mpynet.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751878AbdIVJoT (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:44:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:44:17 +0300 From: Rakesh Pandit To: Javier =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gonz=E1lez?= CC: Matias =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rling?= , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] lightnvm: pblk: fix message if L2P MAP is in device Message-ID: <20170922094417.GB31904@dhcp-216.srv.tuxera.com> References: <20170921112655.GA28539@dhcp-216.srv.tuxera.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-ClientProxiedBy: tuxera-exch.ad.tuxera.com (10.20.48.11) To tuxera-exch.ad.tuxera.com (10.20.48.11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1476 Lines: 42 On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:52:19AM +0200, Javier Gonz?lez wrote: > > On 21 Sep 2017, at 13.26, Rakesh Pandit 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 > > --- > > 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,