|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen: Improvements to domain_crash_sync()
On 24/01/18 16:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> 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?
I'm clearly going blind. Sorry for the noise.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |