Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86/IRQ: make max number of guests for a shared IRQ configurable

[Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/12/2020 09:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.12.2020 18:43, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> @@ -1633,11 +1640,12 @@ int pirq_guest_bind(struct vcpu *v, struct pirq 
>> *pirq, int will_share)
>>          goto retry;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    if ( action->nr_guests == IRQ_MAX_GUESTS )
>> +    if ( action->nr_guests == irq_max_guests )
>>      {
>> -        printk(XENLOG_G_INFO "Cannot bind IRQ%d to dom%d. "
>> -               "Already at max share.\n",
>> -               pirq->pirq, v->domain->domain_id);
>> +        printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
>> +               "Cannot bind IRQ%d to dom%pd: already at max share %u ",

I noticed it just now but could you also remove stray "dom" left in this line 
while commiting.

>> +               pirq->pirq, v->domain, irq_max_guests);
>> +        printk("(increase with irq-max-guests= option)\n");
> 
> Now two separate printk()s are definitely worse. Then putting the
> part of the format string inside the parentheses on a separate line
> would still be better (and perhaps a sensible compromise with the
> grep-ability desire).

Now I'm confused because you asked me not to split the format string between 
the lines which
wouldn't be possible without splitting printk's. I didn't really want to drop 
anything
informative.

> With suitable adjustments, which I'd be okay making while committing
> as long as you agree,

Yes, do with it whatever you see fit.

Igor