From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Xen/x86: Improve information from
 domain_crash_synchronous
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:49:33 +0100
Message-ID: <522DD1ED.4010702@citrix.com>
References: <1378730793-2420-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<1378730793-2420-3-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
	<522DED0402000078000F1873@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1VJ1qt-00034a-7x
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:50:03 +0000
In-Reply-To: <522DED0402000078000F1873@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 09/09/13 14:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 09.09.13 at 14:46, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> +void asm_domain_crash_synchronous(unsigned long addr)
>> +{
>> +    if ( addr == 0 )
>> +        addr = this_cpu(last_extable_addr);
>> +
>> +    printk("domain_crash_sync called from entry.S\n"
>> +           "  fault at %p: ", _p(addr));
>> +    print_symbol("%s\n", addr);
> I'd prefer if all output went on a single line, so that grep-ing
> though a log would turn up the fault locations. Perhaps the
> "fault at" could go in parentheses at the end of the original
> message?

Certainly - I shall respin.

>
>>  #define UNLIKELY_START(cond, tag) \
>> +        .Lunlikely.entry.tag:     \
>>          j##cond .Lunlikely.tag;   \
>>          .subsection 1;            \
>>          .Lunlikely.tag:
> I have to admit that I still dislike this dead label, albeit in the v2
> shape it doesn't look as bad anymore. Nevertheless - why can't
> you just use .Llikely.tag? That is in the original function, always
> available (i.e. even - as done here - when using __UNLIKELY_END()),
> and only very slightly off (pointing past the conditional branch
> rather than at it).
>
> And if we decided to stay with it, it still ask for it to be named
> sensibly: It is not marking the entry of an unlikely code section
> (as it sits in the "normal" code flow).
>
> Jan

I suppose pointing at the end of the unlikely section is ok, but I still
prefer pointing to the actual instruction which made the decsion.

What name would you suggest? I admit that UNLIKELY_ENTRY_LABEL() is not
the best name but I couldn't think of a better name.

~Andrew

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel