On 01/10/18 11:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 01.10.18 at 12:23, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 01/10/18 11:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 01.10.18 at 12:02, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> On 01/10/18 10:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 28.09.18 at 19:22, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> +static char *print_domain(char *str, char *end, const struct domain *d)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + const char *name = NULL;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* Some debugging may have an optionally-NULL pointer. */
>>>>>> + if ( unlikely(!d) )
>>>>>> + return string(str, end, "NULL", -1, -1, 0);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if ( str < end )
>>>>>> + *str = 'd';
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + switch ( d->domain_id )
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>> + case DOMID_IO: name = "[IO]"; break;
>>>>>> + case DOMID_XEN: name = "[XEN]"; break;
>>>>>> + case DOMID_COW: name = "[COW]"; break;
>>>>>> + case DOMID_IDLE: name = "[IDLE]"; break;
>>>>> default: ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>> No - specifically not in this case.
>>>>
>>>> This path is used when printing crash information, and falling back to a
>>>> number is better behaviour than falling into an infinite loop,
>>>> overflowing the primary stack, then taking a #DF (which escalates to
>>>> triple fault on AMD), without printing anything useful.
>>> Ah, good point. Perhaps worth a brief comment instead of a "default:"
>>> then?
>> This incremental diff?
> LGTM, thanks.
I've committed this now, but its just occurred to me that we couldn't
possibly have had a default case, because that is the common case for
most domains.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
