From: Serge E. Hallyn <[email protected]> Convert two ckpt_debugs to ckpt_errors - however, given that they are merely doubling information available in ckpt_write_err(), should they simply be removed?
Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn <[email protected]> --- checkpoint/files.c | 6 ++++-- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/checkpoint/files.c b/checkpoint/files.c index 1f2ab07..e67a13f 100644 --- a/checkpoint/files.c +++ b/checkpoint/files.c @@ -206,12 +206,14 @@ int checkpoint_file(struct ckpt_ctx *ctx, void *ptr) if (!file->f_op || !file->f_op->checkpoint) { ckpt_write_err(ctx, "%(T)%(E)%(P)%(S)f_op lacks checkpoint", -EBADF, file, file->f_op); - ckpt_debug("f_op lacks checkpoint handler: %pS\n", file->f_op); + ckpt_error(ctx, "%(T)f_op lacks checkpoint handler: %pS\n", + file->f_op); return -EBADF; } if (d_unlinked(file->f_dentry)) { ckpt_write_err(ctx, "%(T)%(E)%(P)unlinked file", -EBADF, file); - ckpt_debug("unlinked files are unsupported\n"); + ckpt_error(ctx, "%(T)%(P)unlinked files are unsupported\n", + file); return -EBADF; } -- 1.6.1 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
