[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1357732929.7989.250.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:02:09 +0000
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: ANNIE LI <annie.li@...cle.com>
CC: Matt Wilson <msw@...zon.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] xen/grant-table: correctly initialize
grant table version 1
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 02:40 +0000, ANNIE LI wrote:
> > @@ -1080,18 +1081,18 @@ static void gnttab_request_version(void)
> > panic("we need grant tables version 2, but only version 1 is available");
> > } else {
> > grant_table_version = 1;
> > + grefs_per_grant_frame = PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(struct grant_entry_v1);
> > gnttab_interface =&gnttab_v1_ops;
> > }
> > - printk(KERN_INFO "Grant tables using version %d layout.\n",
> > - grant_table_version);
> > }
> >
>
> Is it better to keep printk here? In your last patch, you removed it
> because gnttab_request_version and gnttab_resume are all called in
> gnttab_init. and gnttab_resume also contains calling of
> gnttab_request_version. But in this patch, gnttab_setup is used, and
> does not have this issue now.
Yes, I think we want to print this at both start of day and resume?
Either by adding a print to gnttab_resume() or by keeping the existing
one here in preference to moving it to gnttab_setup(). I'd prefer the
latter to avoid the duplication, unless I'm mistaken and request_version
is called in more than those two locations.
Ian.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists