On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 02:40 +0000, ANNIE LI wrote:Right.
@@ -1080,18 +1081,18 @@ static void gnttab_request_version(void)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.
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);
}
Yes, I think we want to print this at both start of day and resume?
Either by adding a print to gnttab_resume()Only adding a print into gnttab_resume() would miss this print at start of day. In gnttab_init, gnttab_request_version and gnttab_setup are called, not gnttab_resume.
or by keeping the existingYes, I'd like the latter. Request_version is only called in those two locations.
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.
Ian.--
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel