[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v9 5/6] x86/boot: introduce domid field to struct boot_domain
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:57:37 -0500
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=apertussolutions.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dmarc=pass header.from=<dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1733878661; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=+OPkbT16o3bYHk6acl1lNzdU3SOOeeF6WOeEkuYsQWY=; b=IR+c9gb9FWmkQGJIFlx7somppyqT7gLGEsQMxiW5qEoWL3SQqCOuBHc7d+o3KaEtV7q8O+kNBL1eprDbrzeqzkuszKsSqO6zqDCsxqkxauJWwUWwBBaZiloD7oY7UOqH7LbkH38V/V+oc9k/C5+ypHfuRC423ojfDkSQsCD8af0=
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1733878661; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=jpeaWtvOOhwLlouOtQU/Pw/h2E3SdTOU/Rgb6MiyQ+5oBp1hbDUc8aef4WmwnIVEzNrA9TCXIgmsGH0fh8DJYypR9yZnBGG3hjYS1K0YuKVXfyUxLenQMI9P/zXH99T2wsaXcYy65Fnsh/0HBbMIDaqner4eRMFdpuUx0du8vEg=
- Cc: jason.andryuk@xxxxxxx, christopher.w.clark@xxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:57:58 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 12/9/24 03:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 04.12.2024 17:45, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
On 11/27/24 05:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.11.2024 14:12, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
init_dom0_cpuid_policy(d);
if ( alloc_dom0_vcpu0(d) == NULL )
- panic("Error creating d%uv0\n", domid);
+ panic("Error creating d%uv0\n", bd->domid);
Imo this would better use d->domain_id. And while touching it, %u would also
want swapping for %d.
hmm, I was actually considering s/d%u/%pd/ and just pass in d, but was
certain if there was an explicit reason it wasn't used before. If I am
going to change it, would %pd not be more desired here?
When writing my original reply, I certainly considered this. The anomaly
here is that you really mean to log a vCPU ID, which would require a
struct vcpu * and use of %pv. Yet you don't have that here, precisely
because the creation of the vCPU failed. That said, since
vsprintf.c:print_vcpu() calls print_domain(), using %pd is certainly an
option here (inconsistencies would arise if %pv and %pd presented domain
IDs in [perhaps just slightly] different ways).
Will do, thanks!
v/r,
dps
|
