The patch was merged as-is, so reinstating the warning, using another non-conflicting phrasing, would require a new patch.
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.de> wrote: > On 05/02/2016 05:40 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:10:20PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > >> When looking up a path in the existing configuration it is perfectly > >> possible for the path not to be present. > >> This should not generate a message as it might be errorneously > >> interpreted as an error. > >> > > > > Do you feel really strongly that these messages should go? I don't think > > that they are essential, but they can be useful when debugging an issue > > to see the route the code took. We could move them to level 4, but > > personally, I find the amount of messages generated at log level 4 to be > > so high that it's a pain to use to track bugs that don't occur right > > away. Another possibility would be to change the message to something > > more innocuous. > > > I'm not particulary attached to this patch. > The main issues I have is that we're generating two identical messages > at two different locations (ie making it hard to debug), and that the > message don't indicate whether it's an error or not. > > But sure, I can easily drop this patch. > > Cheers, > > Hannes > -- > Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage > h...@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg > GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) >
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
