RE: [Xen-devel] paging_domctl() missing break statements?

[Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

/me wonders if this explains the periodic but apparently harmless
messages I often see on the console like:

(XEN) paging.c:170: paging_free_log_dirty_bitmap: used X pages for domain Y 
dirty logging

which I've never reported.

And, if not, is that message useful/meaningful to anyone or
should it be removed?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Deegan [mailto:Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 2:58 AM
> To: Jan Beulich
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] paging_domctl() missing break statements?
> 
> At 09:48 +0000 on 17 Feb (1266400095), Jan Beulich wrote:
> > The main switch statement in that function looks suspicious, and with
> no
> > explicit comment saying that fall-through is intended it would seem
> like
> > one or two break statements are actually missing. Comments?
> 
> Yep, looks like that was just working by blind luck.
> 
> Tim.
> 
> diff -r 560277d2fd20 xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c        Mon Feb 15 08:19:07 2010 +0000
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c        Wed Feb 17 09:56:43 2010 +0000
> @@ -717,11 +717,13 @@
>                  hap_logdirty_init(d);
>              return paging_log_dirty_enable(d);
>          }
> +        break;
> 
>      case XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_OFF:
>          if ( paging_mode_log_dirty(d) )
>              if ( (rc = paging_log_dirty_disable(d)) != 0 )
>                  return rc;
> +        break;
> 
>      case XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_CLEAN:
>      case XEN_DOMCTL_SHADOW_OP_PEEK:
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel