Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen: Improvements to domain_crash_sync()

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 24.01.18 at 17:31, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 24/01/18 16:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 24/01/18 16:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.01.18 at 16:49, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>>>> @@ -627,11 +627,12 @@ void __domain_crash(struct domain *d);
>>>>   * Mark current domain as crashed and synchronously deschedule from the 
>>>> local
>>>>   * processor. This function never returns.
>>>>   */
>>>> -void noreturn __domain_crash_synchronous(void);
>>>> -#define domain_crash_synchronous() do {                                   
>>>> \
>>>> -    printk("domain_crash_sync called from %s:%d\n", __FILE__, __LINE__);  
>>>> \
>>>> -    __domain_crash_synchronous();                                         
>>>> \
>>>> -} while (0)
>>>> +void noreturn __domain_crash_sync(void);
>>>> +#define domain_crash_sync(fmt, ...) do {                            \
>>>> +        printk(XENLOG_G_ERR "domain_crash_sync(%pv) from %s: " fmt, \
>>>> +               current, __func__, ## __VA_ARGS__);                  \
>>> This isn't C standard mandated usage of __VA_ARGS__; I generally
>>> think it is better to use the older GCC extension when the number
>>> of actuals may validly be zero (which the C standard doesn't allow).
>> Do you mean go with the (fmt, args...) version ?
> 
> I don't see any other GNU extensions which work here.  Unless you can
> point out exactly which one you mean, I'll stay with the ## __VA_ARGS__
> version, because that is consistent with other examples in our codebase.

Isn't gprintk() a good enough example we have in our code base?

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel