[PATCH] xen: use 'Hardware domain' instead of 'Domain 0' in hwdom_shutdown()

[PATCH] xen: use 'Hardware domain' instead of 'Domain 0' in hwdom_shutdown()

[Vitaly Kuznetsov]

hwdom_shutdown() operates with hardware domains, use the proper wording.
Eliminate pointless braces from switch cases.

Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
---
 xen/common/shutdown.c | 20 +++++---------------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/common/shutdown.c b/xen/common/shutdown.c
index 94d4c53..f229fa0 100644
--- a/xen/common/shutdown.c
+++ b/xen/common/shutdown.c
@@ -37,46 +37,36 @@ void hwdom_shutdown(u8 reason)
     switch ( reason )
     {
     case SHUTDOWN_poweroff:
-    {
-        printk("Domain 0 halted: halting machine.\n");
+        printk("Hardware domain halted: halting machine.\n");
         machine_halt();
         break; /* not reached */
-    }
 
     case SHUTDOWN_crash:
-    {
         debugger_trap_immediate();
-        printk("Domain 0 crashed: ");
+        printk("Hardware domain crashed: ");
 #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
         kexec_crash();
 #endif
         maybe_reboot();
         break; /* not reached */
-    }
 
     case SHUTDOWN_reboot:
-    {
-        printk("Domain 0 shutdown: rebooting machine.\n");
+        printk("Hardware domain shutdown: rebooting machine.\n");
         machine_restart(0);
         break; /* not reached */
-    }
 
     case SHUTDOWN_watchdog:
-    {
-        printk("Domain 0 shutdown: watchdog rebooting machine.\n");
+        printk("Hardware domain shutdown: watchdog rebooting machine.\n");
 #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
         kexec_crash();
 #endif
         machine_restart(0);
         break; /* not reached */
-    }
 
     default:
-    {
-        printk("Domain 0 shutdown (unknown reason %u): ", reason);
+        printk("Hardware domain shutdown (unknown reason %u): ", reason);
         maybe_reboot();
         break; /* not reached */
     }
-    }
 }  
 
-- 
1.9.3

Re: [PATCH] xen: use 'Hardware domain' instead of 'Domain 0' in hwdom_shutdown()

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 23.04.15 at 12:39, <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/shutdown.c
> +++ b/xen/common/shutdown.c
> @@ -37,46 +37,36 @@ void hwdom_shutdown(u8 reason)
>      switch ( reason )
>      {
>      case SHUTDOWN_poweroff:
> -    {
> -        printk("Domain 0 halted: halting machine.\n");
> +        printk("Hardware domain halted: halting machine.\n");
>          machine_halt();
>          break; /* not reached */

Would it perhaps make sense (for the avoidance of ambiguity/
confusion) to also print the hardware domain's domain ID?

Jan

Re: [PATCH] xen: use 'Hardware domain' instead of 'Domain 0' in hwdom_shutdown()

[Vitaly Kuznetsov]

"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> writes:

>>>> On 23.04.15 at 12:39, <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/shutdown.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/shutdown.c
>> @@ -37,46 +37,36 @@ void hwdom_shutdown(u8 reason)
>>      switch ( reason )
>>      {
>>      case SHUTDOWN_poweroff:
>> -    {
>> -        printk("Domain 0 halted: halting machine.\n");
>> +        printk("Hardware domain halted: halting machine.\n");
>>          machine_halt();
>>          break; /* not reached */
>
> Would it perhaps make sense (for the avoidance of ambiguity/
> confusion) to also print the hardware domain's domain ID?

Sure, why not. Did I get it right that we need to print
hardware_domain->domain_id and not hardware_domid here to support hwdom
kexec case? 

-- 
  Vitaly

Re: [PATCH] xen: use 'Hardware domain' instead of 'Domain 0' in hwdom_shutdown()

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 23.04.15 at 13:07, <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> writes:
> 
>>>>> On 23.04.15 at 12:39, <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/shutdown.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/shutdown.c
>>> @@ -37,46 +37,36 @@ void hwdom_shutdown(u8 reason)
>>>      switch ( reason )
>>>      {
>>>      case SHUTDOWN_poweroff:
>>> -    {
>>> -        printk("Domain 0 halted: halting machine.\n");
>>> +        printk("Hardware domain halted: halting machine.\n");
>>>          machine_halt();
>>>          break; /* not reached */
>>
>> Would it perhaps make sense (for the avoidance of ambiguity/
>> confusion) to also print the hardware domain's domain ID?
> 
> Sure, why not. Did I get it right that we need to print
> hardware_domain->domain_id and not hardware_domid here to support hwdom
> kexec case? 

Irrespective of the kexec case I think you should print the actual
state of things, not the ID that was requested to become the
hardware domain (think e.g. also of an early death of Dom0
before the actual HW domain got created).

Jan