[dm-devel] flood of "dm-X: error: dax access failed" due to 5.9 commit 231609785cbfb

[Coly Li]

On 2020/9/3 00:44, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02 2020 at 12:40pm -0400,
> Coly Li <colyli at suse.de> wrote:
> 
>> On 2020/9/3 00:04, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> 5.9 commit 231609785cbfb ("dax: print error message by pr_info() in
>>> __generic_fsdax_supported()") switched from pr_debug() to pr_info().
>>>
>>> The justification in the commit header is really inadequate.  If there
>>> is a problem that you need to drill in on, repeat the testing after
>>> enabling the dynamic debugging.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, now all DM devices that aren't layered on DAX capable devices
>>> spew really confusing noise to users when they simply activate their
>>> non-DAX DM devices:
>>>
>>> [66567.129798] dm-6: error: dax access failed (-5)
>>> [66567.134400] dm-6: error: dax access failed (-5)
>>> [66567.139152] dm-6: error: dax access failed (-5)
>>> [66567.314546] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.319380] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.324254] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.479025] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.483713] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.488722] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.494061] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.498823] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>> [66567.503693] dm-2: error: dax access failed (-95)
>>>
>>> commit 231609785cbfb must be reverted.
>>>
>>> Please advise, thanks.
>>
>> Adrian Huang from Lenovo posted a patch, which titled: dax: do not print
>> error message for non-persistent memory block device
>>
>> It fixes the issue, but no response for now. Maybe we should take this fix.
> 
> OK, yes sounds like it.  It was merged and is commit c2affe920b0e066
> ("dax: do not print error message for non-persistent memory block
> device")

Thanks for informing me this patch is merged, I am going to update my
local one :-)

Coly Li