From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: paging_domctl() missing break statements? Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:36:43 +0000 Message-ID: <20100217173643.GL368@whitby.uk.xensource.com> References: <20100217095806.GK368@whitby.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Dan Magenheimer Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At 15:20 +0000 on 17 Feb (1266420027), Dan Magenheimer wrote: > /me wonders if this explains the periodic but apparently harmless > messages I often see on the console like: > > (XEN) paging.c:170: paging_free_log_dirty_bitmap: used X pages for domain Y dirty logging > > which I've never reported. No, that's just some unrelated noise; I think it went in when the log-dirty bitmaps were made sparse. > And, if not, is that message useful/meaningful to anyone or > should it be removed? It should be removed. Signed-off-by: Tim Deegan diff -r 560277d2fd20 xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c Mon Feb 15 08:19:07 2010 +0000 +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/paging.c Wed Feb 17 17:32:02 2010 +0000 @@ -165,9 +165,6 @@ if ( !mfn_valid(d->arch.paging.log_dirty.top) ) return; - - dprintk(XENLOG_DEBUG, "%s: used %d pages for domain %d dirty logging\n", - __FUNCTION__, d->arch.paging.log_dirty.allocs, d->domain_id); l4 = map_domain_page(mfn_x(d->arch.paging.log_dirty.top));