From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vitaly Kuznetsov Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: use 'Hardware domain' instead of 'Domain 0' in hwdom_shutdown() Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:07:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87bnifgl18.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> References: <1429785554-32633-1-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com> <5538EA6802000078000750F8@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5538EA6802000078000750F8@mail.emea.novell.com> (Jan Beulich's message of "Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:49:44 +0100") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Keir Fraser , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Ian Jackson , Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org "Jan Beulich" writes: >>>> On 23.04.15 at 12:39, 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