Re: lessen the impact of a deprecated warning in hugetlbfs

[Joe Perches]

On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:06 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> WARN_ONCE is a bit strong for a deprecation warning, given that it spews a
> huge backtrace.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> --- linux-2.6.36.noarch/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c~	2010-11-02 14:01:19.489289082 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6.36.noarch/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c	2010-11-02 14:02:19.947986439 -0400
> @@ -915,8 +915,7 @@ struct file *hugetlb_file_setup(const ch
>  	if (creat_flags == HUGETLB_SHMFS_INODE && !can_do_hugetlb_shm()) {
>  		*user = current_user();
>  		if (user_shm_lock(size, *user)) {
> -			WARN_ONCE(1,
> -			  "Using mlock ulimits for SHM_HUGETLB deprecated\n");
> +			printk_once("Using mlock ulimits for SHM_HUGETLB deprecated\n");

Please add a KERN_NOTICE or similar.
The grammar could be improved via "is deprecated"


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/