Hi Jan,
On 05/06/2019 11:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
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 ...
This is a mistake when I wrote the patch/rebase.
--- 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).
I will only re-flow this message.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
