On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:02:09PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 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.
In this version the printk() is in gnttab_setup(), which is called
both at start of day (gnttab_init()) and resume (gnttab_resume()). I
can move it back to gnttab_request_version() if you'd like, but this
patch should be behaving as expected already.
Matt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
