On Sat, Aug 8, 2026 at 5:00 PM Bryam Vargas <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 09:41:36PM +0800, Ming-Hung Tsai wrote: > > One minor nit, which needn't hold up the patch: I'd drop "wanted %u" > > from the error message. The wanted value is derivable from value_size, > > so printing "%s failed: max_entries %u invalid for value_size %u" > > carries the same information. > > I'd keep it. The two DMERR_LIMITs above it in array_block_check() are > "blocknr %llu != wanted %llu" and "csum %u != wanted %u", so "%u != wanted > %u" is the shape a reader of this function already expects. You're right > that the wanted value follows from value_size here and doesn't there -- > what I was matching is the form, not the information content. Mikulas, > drop it when applying if you'd rather.
Thanks for the explanation. That's the reason for the shorter form here: the "wanted" values for csum and blocknr cannot be reproduced from what is printed, but readers can derive the expected max_entries from the printed value_size. Mikulas already dropped it from the staged patches on the dm-next branch.
