From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vitaly Kuznetsov Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 05/11] xen: grant_table: implement grant_table_warn_active_grants() Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:35:36 +0200 Message-ID: <87io9oz9g7.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> References: <1435075913-335-1-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com> <1435075913-335-6-git-send-email-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20150710162425.GB24518@l.oracle.com> <55A396BE020000780008FFD9@mail.emea.novell.com> <1436778532.7019.34.camel@citrix.com> <55A3A14202000078000900E4@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZEa9K-0004vl-0X for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:35:46 +0000 In-Reply-To: <55A3A14202000078000900E4@mail.emea.novell.com> (Jan Beulich's message of "Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:30:10 +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: Olaf Hering , WeiLiu , Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , Andrew Cooper , Julien Grall , Ian Jackson , Andrew Jones , Tim Deegan , David Vrabel , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Daniel De Graaf , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org "Jan Beulich" writes: >>>> On 13.07.15 at 11:08, wrote: >> On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 09:45 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> >>> On 10.07.15 at 18:24, wrote: >>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:11:47PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>> >> Log first 10 active grants of a domain. This function is going to be used >>> >> for soft reset, active grants on this path usually mean misbehaving >> backends >>> >> refusing to release their mappings on shutdown. >>> > >>> > Is there an particular reason 10 was choosen instead of 42 for example :-) >>> > >>> > Also the 10 should probably have an #define for it. >>> >>> Or even be command line controllable. >> >> That sounds like overkill to me, what's wrong with some random hardcoded >> number for a simple debug aid like this? > > From briefly looking at the code it seemed to be more than just a > debug aid (i.e. failing the operation if the count was exceeded). If > the number indeed only controls how many entries get printed, > then a #define certainly is fine. Yes, it is just a debug aid in cases something goes wrong in future. This info is supposed to be useful for hardware domain admin to help finding misbehaving backends. -- Vitaly