Hi,
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 9:15 PM Alexander Aring <aahri...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> If the user generates a -EINVAL it's probably because the user using DLM
> wrong. To give the user notice about that wrong behaviour we should
> always print -EINVAL errors on the proper loglevel. In case of other
> errors like -EBUSY it will be still printed on debug loglevel as the
> current API handles it as "retry again".
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahri...@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/dlm/lock.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> index d8de4003ec6a..7d5f94867e45 100644
> --- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
> +++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
> @@ -2900,11 +2900,21 @@ static int validate_lock_args(struct dlm_ls *ls,
> struct dlm_lkb *lkb,
> #endif
> rv = 0;
> out:
> - if (rv)
> + switch (rv) {
> + case -EINVAL:
> + log_error(ls, "%s %d %x %x %x %d %d %s", __func__,
> + rv, lkb->lkb_id, lkb->lkb_flags, args->flags,
> + lkb->lkb_status, lkb->lkb_wait_type,
> + lkb->lkb_resource->res_name);
> + break;
> + default:
> log_debug(ls, "%s %d %x %x %x %d %d %s", __func__,
> rv, lkb->lkb_id, lkb->lkb_flags, args->flags,
> lkb->lkb_status, lkb->lkb_wait_type,
> lkb->lkb_resource->res_name);
> + break;
> + }
> +
> return rv;
> }
>
> @@ -3037,11 +3047,21 @@ static int validate_unlock_args(struct dlm_lkb *lkb,
> struct dlm_args *args)
> lkb->lkb_astparam = args->astparam;
> rv = 0;
> out:
> - if (rv)
> + switch (rv) {
> + case -EINVAL:
> + log_error(ls, "%s %d %x %x %x %x %d %s", __func__, rv,
> + lkb->lkb_id, lkb->lkb_flags, lkb->lkb_exflags,
> + args->flags, lkb->lkb_wait_type,
> + lkb->lkb_resource->res_name);
> + break;
> + default:
> log_debug(ls, "%s %d %x %x %x %x %d %s", __func__, rv,
> lkb->lkb_id, lkb->lkb_flags, lkb->lkb_exflags,
> args->flags, lkb->lkb_wait_type,
> lkb->lkb_resource->res_name);
> + break;
> + }
> +
there need to be a case 0: which does nothing of course... will send a v2.
- Alex
