[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 09/24] xsplice: Implement payload loading
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:53:06AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 09.04.16 at 02:37, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:50:10PM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 09.04.16 at 00:45, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:18:09PM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >> >>> On 08.04.16 at 23:10, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> >> > +int arch_xsplice_perform_rela(struct xsplice_elf *elf, > >> >> >> > + const struct xsplice_elf_sec *base, > >> >> >> > + const struct xsplice_elf_sec *rela) > >> >> >> > +{ > >> >> >> > + const Elf_RelA *r; > >> >> >> > + unsigned int symndx, i; > >> >> >> > + uint64_t val; > >> >> >> > + uint8_t *dest; > >> >> >> > + > >> >> >> > + if ( !rela->sec->sh_entsize || !rela->sec->sh_size || > >> >> >> > + rela->sec->sh_entsize != sizeof(Elf_RelA) ) > >> >> >> > + { > >> >> >> > + dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG, XSPLICE "%s: Section relative > >> >> >> > header is corrupted!\n", > >> >> >> > + elf->name); > >> >> >> > >> >> >> XENLOG_ERR surely? (and the other examples). > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes! I modified all of those that return an error. One of them I made > >> >> > an printk (the one about more than 64 sections). > >> >> > >> >> Why would that be any worse than other check failures? I think > >> >> these log messages should all be issued consistently. > >> > > >> > OK, so all be printk instead of dprintk? > >> > >> Rather the other way around I would say. > > > > Back to dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG for all of them then. > > I don't see why dprintk() can't be used with log levels other > than debug, as suggested by (I think) Andrew above. OK, let me make them dprintk(XENLOG_ERROR > > Jan > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |