On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 09:16 +0000, Matt Wilson wrote:
> 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.
I misread the patch, you are absolutely right.
Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com>
--
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/
