Re: [PATCH 2/3] Handle GNTST_eagain in kernel drivers

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:40:45PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> 
> > If this problem does occur (the swapper died in dom0) should the
> > printk at least use printk_ratelimited so that we don't cause too much
> > noise?
> 
> I remember there was no flood because the guest was stuck anyway. But
> see below.
> 
> > > The caller has to deal with the various !GNTST_okay states anyway, this
> > > patch wont change that fact.
> > 
> > Ok, so then we don't really need the printk right? As the caller
> > would presumarily do the right thing and also print the error?
> 
> I think its more a debug thing, so that I knew something bad happend.
> And at that time it was just helpful to get me some understanding of the
> code flow. Since now that part of the paging code is reasonable
> debugged, the printk is not really needed anymore.

OK.
> Instead the code who uses these new functionality should have proper
> error handling and print reasonable diagnostic messages.

Excellent. So lets remove that printk(KERN_ERR).

Thanks!
> 
> Olaf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel