Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 3/4] x86/ioreq server: Add HVMOP to map guest ram with p2m_ioreq_server to an ioreq server.

[Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/9/2016 4:20 PM, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 09 August 2016 09:11
> > To: Paul Durrant; Yu Zhang
> > Cc: Andrew Cooper; George Dunlap; Jun Nakajima; Kevin Tian;
> > zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Tim (Xen.org)
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 3/4] x86/ioreq server: Add HVMOP to
> > map guest ram with p2m_ioreq_server to an ioreq server.
> >
> > > > > On 09.08.16 at 09:39, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 8/8/2016 11:40 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 12.07.16 at 11:02, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > +    rc = -ENOENT;
> > > > > +    list_for_each_entry ( s,
> > > > > +                          &d->arch.hvm_domain.ioreq_server.list,
> > > > > +                          list_entry )
> > > > > +    {
> > > > > +        if ( s == d->arch.hvm_domain.default_ioreq_server )
> > > > > +            continue;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +        if ( s->id == id )
> > > > > +        {
> > > > > +            rc = p2m_set_ioreq_server(d, flags, s);
> > > > > +            if ( rc == 0 )
> > > > > +                dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG, "%u %s type
> > HVMMEM_ioreq_server.\n",
> > > > > +                         s->id, (flags != 0) ? "mapped to" : "unmapped from");
> > > > Is this really useful?
> > > Sorry, are you referring to this debug message?
> > > I believe it helps, especially when multiple ioreq servers are
> > > claiming/disclaiming their ownership of
> > > the HVMMEM_ioreq_server. :)
> > Well, that's a configuration bug anyway right now, so I'm not really
> > with you. But in the end it'll be Paul to judge ...
> Indeed, I don't the message has a massive amount of value. More useful would be 
> to add a call into keyhandler.c:dump_domains() to display the current claim.
All right. Let's remove this debug message. The debug key handler can be 
updated in a separate patch, is this OK? :-)
Yu

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