On 12/10/18 14:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.10.18 at 17:21, <sergey.dya...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -161,8 +161,42 @@ string_param("badpage", opt_badpage);
>> /*
>> * no-bootscrub -> Free pages are not zeroed during boot.
>> */
>> -static bool_t opt_bootscrub __initdata = 1;
>> -boolean_param("bootscrub", opt_bootscrub);
>> +enum bootscrub_mode {
>> + BOOTSCRUB_OFF = 0,
>
> The "= 0" is pointless.
I don't mind this change.
>> @@ -2039,8 +2077,24 @@ void __init heap_init_late(void)
>> */
>> setup_low_mem_virq();
>>
>> - if ( opt_bootscrub )
>> + switch ( opt_bootscrub )
>> + {
>> + default:
>> + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
>> + /* Fall through */
>> +
>> + case BOOTSCRUB_IDLE:
>> + printk("Scrubbing Free RAM on %d nodes in background\n",
>> + num_online_nodes());
>
> Still the question whether this printk(), and in particular the inclusion
> of the node count, is meaningful in any way. Other than this
I don't have any strong opinion about how this printk() statement should
look like. It can be changed to whatever maintainers find more appropriate.
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> and one or both changes would be easy enough to make while
> committing, provided we can reach agreement.
Thanks,
Sergey
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
