>>> On 03.06.19 at 18:03, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
> p2m_pt_audit_p2m() has one place where the same message may be printed
> twice via printk and P2M_PRINTK.
>
> Remove the one printed using printk to stay consistent with the rest of
> the code.
>
> Take the opportunity to reflow the format of P2M_PRINTK.
Hmm, yes, but ...
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/p2m-pt.c
> @@ -1041,9 +1041,8 @@ long p2m_pt_audit_p2m(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
> if ( m2pfn != (gfn + i2) )
> {
> pmbad++;
> - P2M_PRINTK("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %#lx"
> - " -> gfn %#lx\n", gfn+i2, mfn+i2,
> - m2pfn);
> + P2M_PRINTK("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %#lx ->
> gfn %#lx\n",
> + gfn + i2, mfn + i2, m2pfn);
... you re-flow an unrelated (but similar) one while ...
> @@ -1108,8 +1107,6 @@ long p2m_pt_audit_p2m(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
> !p2m_is_shared(type) )
> {
> pmbad++;
> - printk("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %#lx"
> - " -> gfn %#lx\n", gfn, mfn, m2pfn);
> P2M_PRINTK("mismatch: gfn %#lx -> mfn %#lx"
> " -> gfn %#lx\n", gfn, mfn, m2pfn);
... you leave alone this one. I don't mind touching the other
one, but this one surely wants touching then as well. And if
you touch that other one, then I think for consistency you
should also touch the 3rd one (between the two).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
