A very trivial little tidy-up patch.
This slightly duplicates a little of patches/ext4_fix_printk_checkpatch_issues
but just in one hunk, easily fixed up.
Various feature printk's come out at different levels, so for example
at my default logging level I see mballoc & extents messages, but
not delalloc, even though they are all on.
Also, since default barrier behavior has changed, I thought perhaps always
printing the barrier state might be a good idea.
Seems ok?
Thanks,
-Eric
------------------------
Make extents, mballoc, and delalloc feature printks all at log level KERN_INFO.
Also print barrier status, whether on or off, since the defaults recently changed.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
---
Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext4/extents.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext4/extents.c 2008-09-07 19:43:35.979702421 -0500
+++ linux-2.6/fs/ext4/extents.c 2008-09-08 12:02:58.580702852 -0500
@@ -2142,7 +2142,7 @@ void ext4_ext_init(struct super_block *s
*/
if (test_opt(sb, EXTENTS)) {
- printk("EXT4-fs: file extents enabled");
+ printk(KERN_INFO "EXT4-fs: file extents enabled");
#ifdef AGGRESSIVE_TEST
printk(", aggressive tests");
#endif
Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext4/mballoc.c 2008-09-07 19:43:36.813639634 -0500
+++ linux-2.6/fs/ext4/mballoc.c 2008-09-08 12:03:00.807640535 -0500
@@ -2560,7 +2560,7 @@ int ext4_mb_init(struct super_block *sb,
ext4_mb_init_per_dev_proc(sb);
ext4_mb_history_init(sb);
- printk("EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled\n");
+ printk(KERN_INFO "EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled\n");
return 0;
}
Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext4/super.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext4/super.c 2008-09-07 19:43:36.603640074 -0500
+++ linux-2.6/fs/ext4/super.c 2008-09-08 12:03:00.266640232 -0500
@@ -2715,6 +2715,11 @@ static int ext4_load_journal(struct supe
return -EINVAL;
}
+ if (journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER)
+ printk(KERN_INFO "EXT4-fs: barriers enabled\n");
+ else
+ printk(KERN_INFO "EXT4-fs: barriers disabled\n");
+
if (!really_read_only && test_opt(sb, UPDATE_JOURNAL)) {
err = jbd2_journal_update_format(journal);
if (err) {
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:08:30PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> A very trivial little tidy-up patch.
>
> This slightly duplicates a little of
> patches/ext4_fix_printk_checkpatch_issues but just in one hunk,
> easily fixed up.
>
> Various feature printk's come out at different levels, so for example
> at my default logging level I see mballoc & extents messages, but
> not delalloc, even though they are all on.
>
> Also, since default barrier behavior has changed, I thought perhaps always
> printing the barrier state might be a good idea.
Looks good to me. Any reason not to merge it with the
ext4_fix_printk_checkpatches_issues? Actually what I was thinking
about doing was to segregate out all of the printk level issues from
everything else, just to make it easier to understand/audit the
cleanup patch(es).
- Ted
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:08:30PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> A very trivial little tidy-up patch.
>>
>> This slightly duplicates a little of
>> patches/ext4_fix_printk_checkpatch_issues but just in one hunk,
>> easily fixed up.
>>
>> Various feature printk's come out at different levels, so for example
>> at my default logging level I see mballoc & extents messages, but
>> not delalloc, even though they are all on.
>>
>> Also, since default barrier behavior has changed, I thought perhaps always
>> printing the barrier state might be a good idea.
>
> Looks good to me. Any reason not to merge it with the
> ext4_fix_printk_checkpatches_issues? Actually what I was thinking
> about doing was to segregate out all of the printk level issues from
> everything else, just to make it easier to understand/audit the
> cleanup patch(es).
>
> - Ted
Sure, it could be merged. The patch I sent actually changed some
behavior, and was limited to mount-time feature prints, so thought it
might make sense on its own.
Either way is fine by me.
-Eric