[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1212951761.32756.4.camel@localhost>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:02:41 +0200
From: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
To: LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] Make some ext3 kernel messages useful by showing device
Hello.
Some of the ext3 warnings in super.c are not really as useful as they
can be, for instance the "EXT3-fs warning: maximal mount count reached,
running e2fsck is recommended" message, does not tell which device it
actually is.
Below is patch(both inlined, and in attached form, since i dont trust my
mailer), to a patch which fixes that particular message, and a few more.
I could look at the rest if anyones interrested?
Oh, and i dont really know if this is nessecary, but:
Signed-off-by: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
--- super.c.orig 2008-06-08 20:49:26.153047364 +0200
+++ super.c 2008-06-08 20:45:20.812047463 +0200
@@ -1188,31 +1188,31 @@
int res = 0;
if (le32_to_cpu(es->s_rev_level) > EXT3_MAX_SUPP_REV) {
- printk (KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs warning: revision level too high, "
- "forcing read-only mode\n");
+ printk (KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs on %s warning: revision level too high, "
+ "forcing read-only mode\n", sb->s_id);
res = MS_RDONLY;
}
if (read_only)
return res;
if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & EXT3_VALID_FS))
- printk (KERN_WARNING "EXT3-fs warning: mounting unchecked fs, "
- "running e2fsck is recommended\n");
+ printk (KERN_WARNING "EXT3-fs on %s warning: mounting unchecked fs, "
+ "running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
else if ((sbi->s_mount_state & EXT3_ERROR_FS))
printk (KERN_WARNING
- "EXT3-fs warning: mounting fs with errors, "
- "running e2fsck is recommended\n");
+ "EXT3-fs on %s warning: mounting fs with errors, "
+ "running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
else if ((__s16) le16_to_cpu(es->s_max_mnt_count) >= 0 &&
le16_to_cpu(es->s_mnt_count) >=
(unsigned short) (__s16) le16_to_cpu(es->s_max_mnt_count))
printk (KERN_WARNING
- "EXT3-fs warning: maximal mount count reached, "
- "running e2fsck is recommended\n");
+ "EXT3-fs on %s warning: maximal mount count reached, "
+ "running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
else if (le32_to_cpu(es->s_checkinterval) &&
(le32_to_cpu(es->s_lastcheck) +
le32_to_cpu(es->s_checkinterval) <= get_seconds()))
printk (KERN_WARNING
- "EXT3-fs warning: checktime reached, "
- "running e2fsck is recommended\n");
+ "EXT3-fs on %s warning: checktime reached, "
+ "running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
#if 0
/* @@@ We _will_ want to clear the valid bit if we find
inconsistencies, to force a fsck at reboot. But for
@@ -1339,8 +1339,8 @@
}
if (bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev)) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs: write access "
- "unavailable, skipping orphan cleanup.\n");
+ printk(KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs on %s: write access "
+ "unavailable, skipping orphan cleanup.\n", sb->s_id);
return;
}
View attachment "super.c.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (2160 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists