[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 13/14] xen/mm: Convert {s, g}et_gpfn_from_mfn() to use typesafe MFN
Hi George, On 24/05/2019 17:24, George Dunlap wrote: On 5/10/19 2:21 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:@@ -1099,19 +1100,19 @@ long p2m_pt_audit_p2m(struct p2m_domain *p2m) entry_count++; continue; } - mfn = l1e_get_pfn(l1e[i1]); - ASSERT(mfn_valid(_mfn(mfn))); - m2pfn = get_gpfn_from_mfn(mfn); + mfn = l1e_get_mfn(l1e[i1]); + ASSERT(mfn_valid(mfn)); + m2pfn = get_pfn_from_mfn(mfn); if ( m2pfn != gfn && type != p2m_mmio_direct && !p2m_is_grant(type) && !p2m_is_shared(type) ) { pmbad++; - printk("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %#lx" - " -> gfn %#lx\n", gfn, mfn, m2pfn); - P2M_PRINTK("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %#lx" - " -> gfn %#lx\n", gfn, mfn, m2pfn); + printk("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %"PRI_mfn" -> gfn %#lx\n", + gfn, mfn_x(mfn), m2pfn); + P2M_PRINTK("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %"PRI_mfn" -> gfn %#lx\n", + gfn, mfn_x(mfn), m2pfn);George, do we really mean to have printk() and P2M_PRINTK() here?Looks like this was introduced (by me!) in a589ff6c179; my best guess is that it was due to a bad rebase merge. Only the P2M_PRINTK version should be kept, am I right? I'll leave it to Julien to decide if he wants to clean this up or leave it be. I am happy to write a patch to remove the duplicated message. Cheers, -- Julien Grall _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |