[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] xmalloc: add support for checking the pool integrity
>>> On 08.12.14 at 17:00, <mdontu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 08 December 2014 10:18:01 Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 08.12.14 at 03:30, <mdontu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > +#ifndef NDEBUG >> > +static bool_t xmem_pool_check_size(const struct bhdr *b, int fl, int sl) >> > +{ >> > + while ( b ) >> > + { >> > + int __fl; >> > + int __sl; >> > + >> > + MAPPING_INSERT(b->size, &__fl, &__sl); >> > + if ( __fl != fl || __sl != sl ) >> > + { >> > + printk(XENLOG_ERR "xmem_pool: for block %p size = %u, { fl = > %d, sl = %d } should be { fl = %d, sl = %d }\n", >> >> Quoting my reply to v1: "Long line. Only the format message alone >> is allowed to exceed 80 characters." >> > > Just so I don't send another faulty patch, you would see that printk() > being: > > printk(XENLOG_ERR > "xmem_pool: for block %p size = %u, { fl = %d, sl = %d } should be { > fl = %d, sl = %d }\n", > b, b->size, fl, sl, __fl, __sl); > > ? Yes. And I'd also recommend removing the spaces around the = characters in the format string. Considering the message being a debugging one, perhaps the two pairs could be printed without any extras, i.e. just {x,y}. >> Also with there potentially being multiple pools, shouldn't all of the >> log messages the patch issues be extended to allow identifying the >> offending one? >> > > I think I can insert the pool name in that message too. Something like: > > printk(XENLOG_ERR > "xmem_pool: %s: for block [...]\n", > pool->name, b, b->size [...]); > > would do? A quick preview: Yes. I very think that's what the name's for after all. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |