Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V4 2/2] xenbus: delay xenbus frontend resume if xenstored is not running

[Aurelien Chartier <aurelien.chartier@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 28/05/13 13:45, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:59:48PM +0100, Aurelien Chartier wrote:
>> On 16/05/13 14:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 16.05.13 at 14:34, Aurelien Chartier <aurelien.chartier@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> @@ -440,6 +467,13 @@ static int __init xenbus_probe_frontend_init(void)
>>>>  
>>>>    register_xenstore_notifier(&xenstore_notifier);
>>>>  
>>>> +  xenbus_frontend_wq = create_workqueue("xenbus_frontend");
>>>> +  if (!xenbus_frontend_wq) {
>>>> +          printk(KERN_ERR "%s: create "
>>>> +                 "xenbus_frontend_workqueue failed\n", __func__);
>>> pr_err() should be the norm these days.
>>>
>>> And personally I consider it quite bad a habit to put function names
>>> in non-debugging log messages - this doesn't really help with
>>> anything (as long as the rest of the message is meaningful), but
>>> clutters the log.
>> I was using the same format as pciback error handling, but I can switch
>> to pr_err.
>>
>>> And finally, you need to do proper error handling here - this code
>>> can be built as a module, and hence leaving notifier and bus
>>> registered upon failure sets up the kernel for crashing. Moving
>>> the code ahead of register_xenstore_notifier() will take care of
>>> one half of the problem, but you'll nevertheless will need to call
>>> bus_unregister() if you really intend to make this a fatal error
>>> condition (which by itself is questionable since in most scenarios
>>> you won't need the work queue at all).
>> Right, I will move the error handling to the xenbus frontend resume
>> function.
> Any ETA when the v5 with these changes will be posted? Thanks.
I was on holidays last week, but the v5 was almost ready. I will send it
today or tomorrow.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel