On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:35:26 +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:50:41PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c >> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ >> #include "print-tree.h" >> #include "locking.h" >> #include "check-integrity.h" >> +#include "rcu-string.h" >> >> #define BTRFSIC_BLOCK_HASHTABLE_SIZE 0x10000 >> #define BTRFSIC_BLOCK_LINK_HASHTABLE_SIZE 0x10000 >> @@ -843,13 +844,14 @@ static int btrfsic_process_superblock_dev_mirror( >> superblock_tmp->never_written = 0; >> superblock_tmp->mirror_num = 1 + superblock_mirror_num; >> if (state->print_mask & BTRFSIC_PRINT_MASK_SUPERBLOCK_WRITE) >> - printk(KERN_INFO "New initial S-block (bdev %p, %s)" >> - " @%llu (%s/%llu/%d)\n", >> - superblock_bdev, device->name, >> - (unsigned long long)dev_bytenr, >> - dev_state->name, >> - (unsigned long long)dev_bytenr, >> - superblock_mirror_num); >> + printk_in_rcu(KERN_INFO "New initial S-block (bdev %p," > > can you please add the 'btrfs: ' prefixes? Please no additional "btrfs" prefix in the check-integrity printk lines that are enabled with the print_mask option. If they are enabled, then for btrfs debugging, and then the context is known. And you get thousands of these lines... > >> + " %s) @%llu (%s/%llu/%d)\n", >> + superblock_bdev, >> + rcu_str_deref(device->name), >> + (unsigned long long)dev_bytenr, >> + dev_state->name, >> + (unsigned long long)dev_bytenr, >> + superblock_mirror_num); >> list_add(&superblock_tmp->all_blocks_node, >> &state->all_blocks_list); >> btrfsic_block_hashtable_add(superblock_tmp, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
