[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/4] xen: use common output function in debugtrace
On 03.09.19 13:47, Jan Beulich wrote: On 03.09.2019 12:22, Juergen Gross wrote:On 03.09.19 12:00, Jan Beulich wrote:On 28.08.2019 10:00, Juergen Gross wrote:Today dumping the debugtrace buffers is done via sercon_puts(), while direct printing of trace entries (after toggling output to the console) is using serial_puts(). Use sercon_puts() in both cases, as the difference between both is not really making sense.No matter that I like this change, I'm not convinced it's correct: There are two differences between the functions, neither of which I could qualify as "not really making sense": Why is it obvious that it makes no sense for the debugtrace output to bypass one or both of serial_steal_fn() and pv_console_puts()? If you're convinced of this, please provide the "why"-s behind the sentence above.Okay, I'll use: Use sercon_puts() in both cases, to be consistent between dumping the buffer when switching debugtrace to console output and when printing a debugtrace entry directly to console.Well, this is better as an explanation indeed, but it still doesn't make clear whether it wasn't in fact wanted for there to be a difference in where output gets sent. I may believe that bypassing pv_console_puts() wasn't intended, but the steal function bypass had been there in 3.2 already, so may well have been on purpose. There are two users of console_steal(): suspend handling - I believe it is a good idea to not use the serial interface while it is potentially uninitialized. gdb support - Why should that be special? Not treating the output data appropriate to the attached debugger will be worse than encapsulating it in a way the debugger can handle. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |