Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V4 01/13] xen/mem_event: Cleanup of mem_event structures

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 02/10/15 2:51 PM >>>
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 09.02.15 at 19:53, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -598,6 +600,12 @@ int mem_sharing_sharing_resume(struct domain *d)
>>>      {
>>>          struct vcpu *v;
>>>
>>> +        if ( rsp.version != MEM_EVENT_INTERFACE_VERSION )
>>> +        {
>>> +            gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING, "mem_event interface version 
>>> mismatch!\n");
>>
>> Why gdprintk()?
>
>Is that only for debug cases?

I'm intending to propose compiling out alll dprintk() and gdprintk() instance in
non-debug builds. Right now they're preferable when the message is so terse
that identifying its origin without file name and line number is difficult. 
Clearly
any non-debug messages shouldn't be of such poor quality.

>>> @@ -1310,18 +1322,19 @@ void p2m_mem_paging_resume(struct domain *d)
>>>          /* Fix p2m entry if the page was not dropped */
>>>          if ( !(rsp.flags & MEM_EVENT_FLAG_DROP_PAGE) )
>>>          {
>>> -            gfn_lock(p2m, rsp.gfn, 0);
>>> -            mfn = p2m->get_entry(p2m, rsp.gfn, &p2mt, &a, 0, NULL);
>>> +            uint64_t gfn = rsp.u.mem_access.gfn;
>>> +            gfn_lock(p2m, gfn, 0);
>>
>> Blank line between declarations and statements. Also - why uint64_t
>> instead of just unsigned long?
>
>The type of mem_access.gfn is uint64_t so its that for consistency.

And the type most functions taking a gfn expect is unsigned long.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel