Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] Handle GNTST_eagain in kernel drivers

[Olaf Hering <olaf@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 03, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

> If this problem does occur (the swapper died in dom0) should the
> printk at least use printk_ratelimited so that we don't cause too much
> noise?

I remember there was no flood because the guest was stuck anyway. But
see below.

> > The caller has to deal with the various !GNTST_okay states anyway, this
> > patch wont change that fact.
> 
> Ok, so then we don't really need the printk right? As the caller
> would presumarily do the right thing and also print the error?

I think its more a debug thing, so that I knew something bad happend.
And at that time it was just helpful to get me some understanding of the
code flow. Since now that part of the paging code is reasonable
debugged, the printk is not really needed anymore.
Instead the code who uses these new functionality should have proper
error handling and print reasonable diagnostic messages.

Olaf

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