xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE - mount msgs

To: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TAKE - mount msgs
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:23:21 +1100
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <999625595.30969.4.camel@scare>; from cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx on Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 12:46:33PM -0500
References: <200109041139.VAA08035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010904134437.A28205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010904225323.A344731@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010904144323.B29262@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010904052113.X14519@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010904155555.A30796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010904060129.A14519@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010904162302.A31393@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <999625595.30969.4.camel@scare>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
hi Russell,

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 12:46:33PM -0500, Russell Cattelan wrote:
> On 04 Sep 2001 16:23:02 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > The point is that you can quickly blame XFS for it ("it crashed in XFS log
> > replay"). With no message it is a lot harder to find which subsystem to 
> > debug.
> Yes... I agree, having a the mount message is very helpful especially
> when loading xfs as a module... 
> 
> I vote for leaving the message in ... maybe shrink it to one line if
> people really thinks it's "cluttering" up the log to much.
>  

Yup, thanks - thats what I ended up doing - leaving in just
one line for the normal (clean log) case, more if anything
unusual is happening, and more for debug kernels.

And now back to doing some real work... 

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>