Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: Improvements to domain_crash_sync()

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 05.02.18 at 16:34, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/02/18 13:44, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 05.02.18 at 12:16, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The use of __LINE__ in a printk() is problematic for livepatching, as it
>>> causes unnecessary binary differences.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, diagnostic information around calls is inconsistent and
>>> occasionally unhelpful.  (e.g. diagnosing logs from the field which might be
>>> release builds, or likely without exact source code).
>>>
>>> Take the opportunity to improve things.  Shorten the name to
>>> domain_crash_sync() and require the user to pass a print message in.
>> First of all I'd like to re-iterate that a long time ago a plan was
>> formulated to entirely remove synchronous domain crashing. If I
>> leave aside the three uses in wait.c (which you say you want to
>> remove in its entirety anyway rather sooner than later), there
>> are two other call sites. Wouldn't it therefore be more productive
>> to actually get rid of those?
> 
> The asm_domain_crash_synchronous() callsite is also heading for the
> axe.  I've already deleted it in my series pulling bounce frame handling
> up into C.
> 
> The vmx_vmentry_failure() callsite looks like it can turn into
> domain_crash() by allowing the function to return and re-enter the
> softirq processing path.
> 
> Given that, I'd be happy to get rid of the domain_crash_sync()
> infrastructure eventually, but given how far off the deletion patches
> are, I'd still like to drop the __LINE__ reference in the short term.

I can live with that, but please make clear in the commit message
that this is intended to die (so that people won't use improvements
being done here as argument to add new users).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel