[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/2] xen/vm-events: Move parts of monitor_domctl code to common-side.
- To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Corneliu ZUZU <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 14:42:54 +0200
- Cc: Tamas K Lengyel <tamas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
- Delivery-date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:43:09 +0000
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=uRH3h2FiVeWFCQJNVMPb/X7gfBD8RcA5aJsu4M1lH7BP1vdXipayD4toJGoF1CknOJg8uHYRFF/omU5LOTzdFVeW6V2mMhNPAzKJYw3uUCzKQBfbPWvZZBmF/hEEE0lT+KJo4iu1eXODniA8rW5Ut1t8p8tLie76Fxj9JcVaNu8ddXyh+akzsajTsfnYZ3VsiuK753BV6I1DcCGPAbYcrfu6GNLYxR2w6G8vK7oAo6C+hj6uRYxakUfYF2AzTTcUVac8sWocXc4MVWHqpR+rPkrnOE0JUI9/Pr2c4AaOfo3/qka9pf51aicE07wZnxYXe99WCWI9YJceQxWO19apAA==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On 2/15/2016 2:25 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.02.16 at 07:37, <czuzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
default:
- return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ /*
+ * Should not be reached unless arch_monitor_get_capabilities() is not
+ * properly implemented. In that case, since reaching this point does
+ * not really break anything, don't crash the hypervisor, issue a
+ * warning instead of BUG().
+ */
+ printk(XENLOG_WARNING
+ "WARNING, BUG: arch_monitor_get_capabilities() not implemented"
+ "properly.\n");
- };
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ }
I disagree with the issuing of a message here. At the very least this
should be a dprintk(). Perhaps an ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() would be
the way to go? What's worse though is that I can't see the checking
which would make true the "should not be reached" statement above
(not that you must not rely on the caller of the hypercall to be well
behaved).
ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() is appropriate here
Noted.
Corneliu.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
