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>
---
changes since v2:
- add case 0: for successful case in we don't need to print out
anything.
fs/dlm/lock.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lock.c b/fs/dlm/lock.c
index 026c203ff529..061fa96fc978 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lock.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lock.c
@@ -2900,11 +2900,23 @@ static int validate_lock_args(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct
dlm_lkb *lkb,
#endif
rv = 0;
out:
- if (rv)
+ switch (rv) {
+ case 0:
+ break;
+ 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 +3049,23 @@ 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 0:
+ break;
+ 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;
+ }
+
return rv;
}
--
2.31.1
