[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131121101945.GA23049@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:45 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd: Lower severity of aborted journal from EMERG to CRIT
On Tue 19-11-13 02:26:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 05:45:33PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > dead. If it was an important filesystem in your system, the whole system is
> > unusable. In kernel, we don't know whether the filesystem was important or
> > not. So KERN_EMERG isn't adequate in all the cases but KERN_CRIT is
> > neither. What if we made that message print also device name (it would be
> > more useful anyway in that case) and you could then filter out messages for
> > unimportant devices in syslogd?
>
> What is important or unimportant? In todays world I don't think a fs
> dying is nessecarily criticial. A root filesystem might be, but so
> might be any devices that is a single point of failure required for
> operation.
Agreed. And that is a reason to keep messages KERN_EMERG or change them
to KERN_CRIT? I can see arguments in both ways and so I don't feel a strong
incentive to change what we have now...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists