lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[TRIVIAL] silence invalidate_bdev() a bit
Date
[ Experts, does this make sense?  The Debian kernel tree makes it a
KERN_DEBUG printk instead. ]

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

The 2.4.1x invalidate_bdev() is a little to verbose and warns about
conditions that can easily happen in practice. Silence up those
printks a little like most vendor trees already do.


--- trivial-2.4.20-pre4/fs/buffer.c.orig 2002-08-20 18:00:33.000000000 +1000
+++ trivial-2.4.20-pre4/fs/buffer.c 2002-08-20 18:00:33.000000000 +1000
@@ -695,13 +695,13 @@
/* All buffers in the lru lists are mapped */
if (!buffer_mapped(bh))
BUG();
- if (buffer_dirty(bh))
+ if (buffer_dirty(bh) && destroy_dirty_buffers)
printk("invalidate: dirty buffer\n");
if (!atomic_read(&bh->b_count)) {
if (destroy_dirty_buffers || !buffer_dirty(bh)) {
remove_inode_queue(bh);
}
- } else
+ } else if (!bdev->bd_openers)
printk("invalidate: busy buffer\n");

write_unlock(&hash_table_lock);
--
Don't blame me: the Monkey is driving
File: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>: [PATCH] silence invalidate_bdev() a bit
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.116 / U:3.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site