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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 10.02.15 at 19:03, <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Tamas K Lengyel <tamas.lengyel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 02/10/15 5:38 PM >>>
>>>On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>I willwrap it into #ifndef NDEBUG as it is really only for debugging.
>>
>> That'll make the code even uglier, and won't address the question I 
> originally asked.
> 
> I just reused the function since I've seen it being used for printing
> warnings. What would be the preffered print function to be used here?

printk(XENLOG_G_* ...);

Jan


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