Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Jun 2022 11:28:59 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] s390/kvm: avoid hypfs error message | From | Christian Borntraeger <> |
| |
Am 20.06.22 um 11:25 schrieb Juergen Gross: > On 20.06.22 11:19, Heiko Carstens wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:18:37AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> Am 20.06.22 um 08:03 schrieb Juergen Gross: >>>> Ping? >>>> >>>> On 07.06.22 14:33, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>>> When booting under KVM the following error messages are issued: >>>>> >>>>> hypfs.7f5705: The hardware system does not support hypfs >>>>> hypfs.7a79f0: Initialization of hypfs failed with rc=-61 >>>>> >>>>> While being documented, they can easily be avoided by bailing out of >>>>> hypfs_init() early in case of running as a KVM guest. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c | 3 +++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c >>>>> index 5c97f48cea91..bdf078f3c641 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/inode.c >>>>> @@ -464,6 +464,9 @@ static int __init hypfs_init(void) >>>>> { >>>>> int rc; >>>>> + if (MACHINE_IS_KVM) >>>>> + return -ENODATA; >>>>> + >>>>> hypfs_dbfs_init(); >>>>> if (hypfs_diag_init()) { >>> >>> In case KVM implements hypfs this check would then be wrong. >>> Question to people on CC/TO. >>> Would it be an option to still check with KVM but avoid the error message. >>> So basically changing hypfs_diag_init and fail_dbfs_exit to check >>> for KVM on error? >>> Or is this worse? >> >> I'd say just move the pr_err("Initialization of hypfs failed with...") >> one label above to fail_hypfs_diag_exit. Then we still get the message >> that the hardware system doesn't support hypfs, which seems to be >> wanted, and the error message only appears for an error. >> >> Even though I personally dislike printing everything to the console >> this seems to be what is/was preferred. So let's keep that. > > Works for me. > > Would you be fine with additionally: > > @@ __init int hypfs_diag_init(void) > int rc; > > if (diag204_probe()) { > - pr_err("The hardware system does not support hypfs\n"); > + pr_info("The hardware system does not support hypfs\n"); > return -ENODATA; > } > > As this not really an error.
Yes, makes sense.
| |